


o V 



:^ 



^ 



<^. 



.0^ 0°' 






,A^^/ 






4 O 



.^"■ 



..^^ 









"^ 






o 



^ 

"^r, 

yf 



-S vJ-' 



-^' 



" o 



•J 



,-^ 






V 



\^. ,\> 



■> '^, 






u 



.^"^^ 



"^: 















'^ 



^. 



.7<^- 



O r 














■^^ 



V 


















tc 






'> 



O „ O A> 



-^^^ 



,^^ 










V^ r ' • o. 






O^ o - . -^ a\ -ts 



<: 



o 

o 



x^r 






<;f-. 






^-- ,^^ 












,0^^ "^^^ 



. -^c^:^.,. 





















^^-n* 



.^^ 



V ^ ' • o, CV \0 , ' • • ^ •^^ 







& 



/ 



NEW JERSEY AS A ROYAL 
PROVINCE 

1738 to 1776 C ij^ 

4> 



BY 

EDGAR JACOB FISHER, A. M. 



1*^*^4^.4 ^W^i <»■^# ^-*i^> 



SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS 

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

IN THE 

Faculty of Political Science 
Columbia University 



NEW YORK 
I9II 



1. - 



Zn £xch»age. 

DEC 30 ]9I} 



.^L^Jt^^^y^' Al^ 



^0 

. MY FATHER 



PREFACE 



With the publication of this monograph, there is 
completed a detailed study of the colonial history of New 
Jersey. Dr. Tanner's exhaustive and admirable treat- 
ment of the subject comprises the period from the early 
settlements to 1738, when the executive union with New 
York was terminated. From that time until the Revo- 
lution, the compass of this study, New Jersey enjoyed a 
separate royal establishment in all departments. The 
purpose of this work is twofold. An attempt has been 
made, first, to outline the political history of the prov- 
ince, and, second, to show the part taken by New Jersey 
in the Third and Fourth Intercolonial Wars and in the 
preliminaries of the Revolution. The subject has been 
pursued to the threshold of the convention which for- 
mally declared the overthrow of the royal provincial 
government and adopted the first constitution of the 
state. 

In the preparation of this volume, the available manu- 
script and printed sources have been used. The pub- 
lished volumes of the New Jersey Archives include docu- 
ments relating to the colonial history, the journal of the 
governor and council in administrative session, of the 
council in legislative session, and newspaper extracts 
pertaining to the province. The Nevill and Allinson 
editions of the colonial laws. The Papers of Lewis Mor- 
ris, and selections from the correspondence of William 
Alexander, Earl of Stirling, are some of the other im- 
7] 7 



8 PREFACE [8 

portant printed original sources. There is a wealth of 
manuscript material for the later colonial history of New 
Jersey. The following are in the State House at Tren- 
ton : the Journal of the General Assembly in the State 
Library, the Minutes of the Supreme Court in the of^ce 
of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, and Liber AAA 
and Liber A B of Provincial Com?nissions in the office 
of the Secretary of State. The Minutes of the Council 
of Proprietors of East Jersey and the Minutes of the 
Council of Proprietors of West Jersey are still kept at 
Perth Amboy and Burlington, respectively. These rec- 
ords are of such value to the student of New Jersey his- 
tory that they should be acquired by the state for pre- 
servation in the State Library. In the library of the 
New Jersey Historical Society at Newark, the manu- 
script sources include the papers of Lewis Morris, Rob- 
ert Hunter Morris, James Alexander, Ferdinand John 
Paris and Joseph Sherwood, In the same library there 
are also copies of the original papers of Governor 
Belcher referring to New Jersey. The originals are in 
the possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society. 
In the library of the Pennsylvania Historical Society at 
Philadelphia there are two volumes of New Jersey manu- 
scripts, and miscellaneous letters from the Penn Collec- 
tion, that are of value and interest for this subject. 

To those who have aided him in gaining access to the 
sources, the author is deeply indebted. The kindness 
and courtesy of the librarians and their assistants of the 
State Library at Trenton, the New Jersey Historical 
Society Library at Newark, the Pennsylvania Historical 
Society Library at Philadelphia and the Jersey City Pub- 
lic Library, is most gratefully acknowledged. He is 
likewise under obligations to Mr. Adriance Lyon, Regis- 
ter of the East Jersey proprietors, and Mr. H. S. Haines, 



9] PREFACE g 

Surveyor General of West Jersey, for the use of the pro- 
prietary records. Dr. Tanner's suggestions regarding 
the primary sources were of distinct service, and his 
work upon the eadier period of the history of New Jer- 
sey has been of great assistance in interpreting the later 
period. To Professor Herbert L. Osgood, of Columbia 
University, the author's most grateful thanks are due. 
The work was pursued under his guidance and helpful 
criticism, and he gave generously of his time to reading 
and preparing the manuscript for the press. 

Edgar J. Fisher. 
New York City, February 14, 1911. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



CHAPTER I 
The Governor — Position and Personnel 

pagb 

Introductory Statement 21 

New Jersey under the proprietary government . . 21 

Royal government in New Jersey — the Union period 22 

The movement for a separate governor 22 

Position of the Governor 24 

The Royal Governors from 1738 to 1776 25 

Lewis Morris, 1738 to 1746 25 

Estimate and sketch of his career 25 

His commission and instructions 29 

Jonathan Belcher, 1746 to 1757 30 

Estimate and sketch of his career 31 

His commission and instructions 37 

President Reading's administration, 1757 to 1758 yj 

The three brief administrations 38 

Francis Bernard, 1758 to 1760 38 

Thomas Boone, 1760 to 1761 39 

Josiah Hardy, 1761 to 1763 39 

Their commissions and instructions 40 

William Franklin, 1763 to 1776 41 

Estimate and sketch of his career 41 

Attitude during the Revolution 42 

Minor Executive Ofifices 43 

Lieutenant Governor 43 

Provincial Secretary 44 

Other Officers 46 

CHAPTER n 
The Council— Position and Personnel 

Position of the Council 48 

Dual capacity — administration and legislation 48 

11] II 



12 CONTENTS [i2 

PAGE 

The governor and legislative sessions of the council 48 

Territorial division recognized in the council 50 

Personnel of the Council 51 

General character of the councillors 51 

Morris's council 52 

His appointments 53 

Predominance of proprietary influence .... 60 

Belcher's council 60 

His appointments 60 

Ashfield's contest for a seat in council 62 

Struggle between Belcher and the proprietors for appointments, 66 

Council changes under Bernard, Boone, and Hardy 67 

Franklin's appointments 69 

CHAPTER III 

The Assembly — Position and Personnel 

Position of the Assembly 73 

Rights and powers of the assembly 73 

Alternate sessions at Perth Amboy and Burlington 73 

Plan of representation 77 

Important rules 80 

Personnel of the Assembly 81 

General character of the assemblymen 81 

The assemblies 82 

Members of the Eleventh Assembly, 1738 to 1740 82 

Members of the Twelfth Assembly, 1740 to 1743 84 

The three annual assemblies, 1743 to 1746 84 

Members of the Sixteenth Assembly, 1746 to 1749 87 

Members of the Seventeenth Assembly, 1749 to 1751 88 

Members of the Eighteenth Assembly, 1751 to 1754 89 

Members of the Nineteenth Assembly, 1754 to 1761 89 

Members of the Twentieth Assembly, 1761 to 1769 89 

Members of the Twenty-First Assembly, 1769 to 1772 .... 91 

Members of the Twenty-Second Assembly, 1772 to 1776 ... 93 

Method of election g^ 

The Colonial Agent g5 

Theoretical and actual position of the agent 95 

Method by which the assembly controlled the agent 95 

Personnel: Partridge, Sherwood, Wilmot, Franklin, De Berdt . 98 



13] CONTENTS 13 

PACK 

CHAPTER IV 

Legislative History — The Morris Administration 

Character of the Constitutional Conflicts loi 

Conflicts common to all the colonies loi 

Conditions peculiar to New Jersey 102 

The character of the land system 102 

Quakerism 103 

The two capitals 103 

Chief Subjects of Legislation under Morris, Belcher and Franklin. 104 

Legislation under Governor Morris 105 

The Eleventh Assembly, 1738 105 

Contest over the support bill 107 

Results of the first assembly under a separate governor .... 108 

The Twelfth Assembly, 1740 109 

Lack of harmony shown in the addresses, 1740 no 

Legislation for the West Indian Expedition no 

Peaceful session of October, 1741 in 

Morris's rejection of the ;,^40,ooo act, 1742 113 

The Thirteenth Assembly, 1743 115 

Governor and council reject assembly's favorite measures . . . 115 

The indiscreet publication of the fee bill 115 

Refusal of the assembly to amend the militia act, 1744 .... 116 

The Fourteenth Assembly, 1744 117 

Continued refusal to amend the militia act 117 

Quarrel between assembly and council over public affairs ... 118 

Hunderdon county loan-ofifice commissioner dispute 121 

The Fifteenth Assembly, 1745 123 

Revival of old quarrels - 124 

Disagreement over support, paper money and militia bills . 124 

Dispute about the place of meeting 126 

The Sixteenth Assembly, 1746 129 

Hunterdon county loan-office election again 129 

Militia act passed 130 

Support act contest 130 

Legislation under President Hamilton 131 

The Sixteenth Assembly, 1746 131 

Legislation regarding the Canadian Expedition 131 

The anti-proprietary outbreaks, 1747 131 



14 CONTENTS [14 

PAGE 

CHAPTER V 

Legislative History — The Belcher and Franklin 

Administrations 

Legislation under Governor Belcher 132 

The Sixteenth Assembly, 1747 132 

The congratulatory addresses 132 

The support bill passed does not satisfy the governor and 

council 134 

• Activity of the rioters calls forth legislation 136 

Trouble with counterfeiters 137 

The assembly's favorite bills passed 138 

Beginning of the contest over the quotas act, 1748 139 

Assembly's attitude toward rioting and counterfeiting .... 140 

The Seventeenth Assembly, 1749 142 

Quotas act and support act disputes 143 

Refusal of assembly to pay the Morris salary arrears 145 

Fifth failure of the quotas act, 1750 147 

Case of the five Burlington County judges 148 

Assembly attempts to force removal of Sherifif Riddle .... 149 

Continued strife over the quotas act, 1751 150 

The Eighteenth Assembly, 1751 151 

Quotas and support bills finally passed 152 

Subsequent difficulties regarding the quotas 153 

The Riddle-Bonney controversy again 154 

Renewal of the land troubles, 1752 155 

The royal order for a revised edition of the laws 155 

Case of Sheriff Anderson, 1753 . 157 

French and Indian affairs, 1754 157 

The Nineteenth Assembly, 1754 158 

Assembly refuses to revise the militia act 159 

The war necessitates frequent sessions 159 

The paper money controversy, 1757 . 162 

The Legislative Sessions under President Reading 162 

Legislation under Governor Bernard 164 

The Nineteenth Assembly, 1758 164 

Bernard and the Easton Indian Conference 164 

Harmony between the branches of government 165 

Legislation under Governor Boone 165 

The Nineteenth Assembly, 1760 165 

The Twentieth Assembly, 1761, passes a two-year support act. . 165 

Legislation under Governor Hardy 166 

The Twentieth Assembly, 1761, concerned with military affairs. 166 



1-] CONTENTS 15 

PAGE 

Legislation under Governor Franklin 167 

The Twentieth Assembly, 1768 167 

After the war, much profitable general legislation 167 

The extra-legal session at Perth Amboy, 1765 168 

Legislation for supplying royal troops 168 

Bills affecting representation in the assembly, 1768 168 

The Twenty-First Assembly, 1769 . 169 

The demonstrations against lawyers, and legislation 169 

^100,000 act and assembly's refusal to supply troops 169 

The Twenty-Second Assembly, 1772 ... . 169 

The new representatives 169 

Controversy about East Jersey treasury robbery 170 

Increasing estrangement between governor and legislature . . 170 

CHAPTER VI 
The Proprietary System and the Land Troubles 

The Proprietary System 171 

The unique character of this system in New Jersey after 1702 . . 171 

The East Jersey proprietors . 172 

Who composed the proprietary council 172 

Council meetings and proprietary ofificers 172 

The personnel of the East Jersey council 173 

The West Jersey proprietors 174 

Democratic character of landownership . . . . • 174 

Council meetings and officers 175 

The personnel of the West Jersey proprietors 175 

The Land Conflicts in New Jersey 176 

The conflicting grants 176 

Early history of the Elizabethtown and Monmouth tracts ... 176 

The claims advanced because of Indian purchase 184 

Disturbances during the Morris administration 186 

Many ejectment suits from 1741 to 1743 186 

The Newark riots of 1745 to 1746, and results 187 

Outlook during President Hamilton's administration .... 191 

Partial adjustment during Belcher's administration 193 

Dif^cult for council and assembly to agree 194 

Legislation upon the subject, 1748 195 

Perth Amboy riots, 1747 197 

Petitions to the crown for aid 198 

The action taken by the home government 200 

Essex, Middlesex and Hunderton county disorders 202 

Causes for the subsidence of the troubles 204 

The Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery 206 



1 6 CONTENTS [i6 

PAGB 

CHAPTER VII 
Boundary Disputes 

The Northern Boundary Dispute with New York 210 

The point at issue ... 210 

Early attempts at settlement 211 

Progress during the Morris administration ........ 211 

Erection of Morris county revives the controversy, 1740 ... 211 

Governor Clinton's attitude . . 213 

East Jersey proprietors petition for an act to run the line, 1743. 214 

Progress during the Belcher administration 214 

Legislature passes an act for running the line, 1748 214 

New York successfully opposes the act 215 

The pamphlet discussion 217 

Erection of Sussex county renews border troubles, 1753. • . 221 

Movement to secure a temporary line fails 222 

Settlement effected during Franklin's administration 227 

Both provinces act in favor of a royal commission, 1763 . . . 228 

The commissioners and their report, 1769 229 

Dissatisfaction, and movement for an appeal 232 

The final adjustment 233 

Observations upon the result 235 

Disputed Claims to the Ownership of Staten Island 235 

The Boundary between East and West Jersey 236 

Early attempts to fix this line 236 

East Jersey proprietors run the line ex parte in 1743 . . . 237 

Effect of the northern boundary decision upon this line 237 

West Jersey's attitude not unjustifiable ... 238 

CHAPTER VIII 
The Judicial System 

The System of Courts 240 

Alterations in the Judicial System 241 

By royal instructions 241 

By executive ordinances 244 

By legislation .... . 248 

The Riots against the Lawyers, 1769 256 

Causes of the riots 256 

The assembly investigation . . 256 

The result and legislation 258 

Personnel of the Supreme Court ... 262 

The justices appointed to the bench 263 

The Jones-Morris controversy 263 

The Provincial Attorneys General 271 



ij] CONTENTS 17 

PAGE 

CHAPTER IX 

The Financial System 

General Character of Colonial Finances in New Jersey 273 

Expenditures 273 

The support of government 273 

How salaries were paid 274 

Character of a support bill 274 

Support of government under Morris 275 

Support of government under Belcher . 279 

Support of government under Franklin 281 

Officers petition for higher salaries . 282 

Taxation in New Jersey ... ... 284 

Method of apportioning taxes . . 285 

Import and export duties 287 

Excise tax ... 289 

Simplicity of the system of taxation ... 289 

The Bills of Credit 289 

The instruction of 1740 and the attitude of the home government. 290 

Failure under Morris to pass the ^40,000 act . 291 

Emissions for the Third Intercolonial War 292 

Disallowance of the .^f 40, 000 a:t passed in 1747 ... 293 
Assembly report on the condition of paper money in New Jersey, 

1753 ... 294 

Emissions during the Fourth Intercolonial War . 296 

Repeated failures to obtain general emissions under Franklin . . 298 

Requirement that the bills should not be legal tender 298 

Attitude of the assembly 299 

Considerations involved in the paper money question 302 

The Counterfeiting Evil . . 304 

Grows with the increased use of paper money 304 

Legislation against counterfeiting . . . .... 305 

The Morris County counterfeiters in 1748 • • ...... 306 

Activity of Samuel Ford and his associates . 307 

The East Jersey Treasury Robbery, 1768 . 308 

Circumstances of the robbery . . 308 

Connection of Ford with the robbery 311 

The long legislative deadlock 312 

The assembly's demand upon the treasurer 313 

Treasurer Skinner's resignation and the suit against him 315 

Assembly Control in Financial Afifairs . . 317 



CHAPTER I 

The Governor — Position and Personnel 

With the growth of the English colonies in America 
in influence and wealth, the royal officials became more 
active in their endeavors to bring about a greater de- 
pendence of the colonies upon the crown. To obtain 
this end, the system of royal provinces was developed, 
that is, provinces in which there was a body of officials, 
appointed by and receiving instructions from the crown. 
The particular circumstances attending the transition, of 
course, differed in the different colonies, but the object 
3f the royal officials in each case was the same. 

In the case of New Jersey, which became a royal 
province in 1702, the disordered condition of the pro- 
prietary affairs made the change not altogether unwel- 
come. Title to the soil of New Jersey had been granted 
by the Duke of York to Berkeley and Carteret in 1664. 
By subsequent transfers this territory became sub- 
divided, Berkeley receiving West Jersey and Carteret East 
fersey, the former division after different sales coming 
!nto the hands of a large number of proprietors, and the 
latter division by a somewhat similar process coming 
nto the possession of twenty-four proprietors. East 
[ersey affairs were managed by the twenty-four acting 
as a board of proprietors, while territorial matters in 
West Jersey came to be managed by an annually elected 
:ouncil of proprietors.' 

' For the details of these various transfers see Tanner, Province of 
Nezv Jersey, ch. i. 

-i] 21 



22 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [22 

The deeds of lease and release given by the Duke of 
York to Berkeley and Carteret granted territorial but 
not political rights. Inasmuch as maintaining political 
authority was a necessary accompaniment to the success 
of the enterprise, the proprietors assumed to exercise 
the rights of government, issuing in 1665 ^^^^ Conces- 
sions and Agreements under which New Jersey was to 
be governed. With the increase in the number and 
character of the proprietors came a natural divergence 
of interests, resulting in the formation of hostile factions. 
The doubts regarding the legality of the proprietors' 
claims to exercise political authority added to the unrest 
in the provinces. A contest for the governorship of 
East Jersey between Andrew Hamilton and Jeremiah 
Basse brought matters to a climax by practically nulli- 
fying political authority. In 1702, surrender was made 
to the crown and New Jersey became a royal province. 

The authorites in England did not see fit at this time 
to appoint a separate royal governor for New Jersey, but 
gave the commission of governor to Lord Cornbury, 
who was in May, 1702, appointed governor of New 
York. The governorship was thus held jointly with 
New York, but in other respects New Jersey had its 
own separate and distinct organs of government. It 
was soon realized that the joint governorship was not 
without its disadvantages, so that there developed a 
decided movement for the appointment of a separate 
governor for New Jersey.' 

Although surface indications of this movement had 
appeared before 1736, it was not until that year, when 
Governor Cosby died, that earnest and concerted efforts 
were made for the desired end. John Anderson, who as 

'Tanner, op. cit., ch. xiii. 



23] THE GOVERNOR 23 

president of the council, became acting governor of New 
Jersey at Cosby's death, sent a petition to the king 
signed by himself, the council, and some assembly mem- 
bers.' The petition cited New Jersey's disappointment 
that Queen Anne had not appointed a separate governor 
when the royal government was instituted, and men- 
tioned the chief arguments that were used to support 
New Jersey's contention. The governor resided in New 
York and preferred the interests of that colony to those 
of New Jersey. He was absent from the latter province 
for sometimes an entire year, with consequent neglect of 
public affairs. It was detrimental to have one governor 
for the two provinces, and New Jersey could support a 
separate governor. For those reasons, in general, was 
the king humbly petitioned to appoint a distinct gover- 
nor. At the same time the Grand Jury of Middlesex 
County sent a petition in hearty accord with the petition 
sent by the governor, council and assembly.^ 

Two months later, in May, 1736, the Lords of the 
Committee of Council submitted to the Lords Commis- 
sioners for Trade and Plantations for their examination 
and report, a petition to the king from Richard Partridge, 
the colonial agent of New Jersey, adding his influence in 
support of the New Jersey idea.^ Sir William Keith, a 
former governor of Pennsylvania, in a memorial to the 
lords of trade, insisted that it was impracticable to faith- 
fully discharge the duties of governor of both provinces 
and regarded himself as a lit person to explain the peti- 
tions that had been laid before the crown."* In August, 
1736, Partridge again urged the matter upon the author- 

^ Neiv Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 441. 
"^ Ibid., p. 144. ^ Ibid., p. 448. 

* Keith had previously applied for the separate governorship of New 
Jersey. 



24 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [24 

ities in a long petition, giving " Reasons Humbly offer'd 
why a Separate Governor should be appointed for New 
Jersey, and ordered constantly to reside there/ 

But notwithstanding this continued petitioning, when 
in June, 1737, Lord Delaware was appointed governor 
of New York, he was given the commission of New 
Jersey also. Delaware subsequently resigned, however, 
and upon the appointment of Admiral George Clinton as 
governor of New York, the home authorities decided to 
grant New Jersey's prayer for a separate governor, ap- 
pointing Lewis Morris to that ofifice. Duly grateful for 
this concession, the council and representatives of the 
province sent an address to the king, acknowledging the 
granting of their petition, expressing the hope that 
trade and commerce would now flourish, justice be 
speedily administered, and with the blessing of happiness 
an increased population result. Entire confidence was 
expressed in the person whom the king had appointed.^ 

Upon his appointment as chief executive of a royal 
province, a governor was given a commission and instruc- 
tions, the former of which was published upon his arrival 
in the colony, while the latter were regarded as secret. 
The commission defined in general the powers of the 
governor and remained essentially unchanged as issued 
to the different governors of the province. Morris's 
commission in 1738 was practically the same as Corn- 
bury's of 1702.3 "To execute all things in due manner 
that shall belong unto your said command " is the gen- 
eral executive power granted to the governor. 

The governor's powers in his relations to the council 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 451. 'Ibid., vol. vi, p. 58. 

^ Ibid., p. I, Morris's commission was doubtless copied from Gov. 
Montgomerie's, because the latter's name appears in it about a dozen 
times. 



i^J THE GOVERNOR 



-D 



and assembly were stated, and then in turn his judicial, 
ecclesiastical and military duties considered.' As with 
the commission, the instructions which were given to 
successive governors also remained in most particulars 
the same. What changes did occur were usually in the 
form of additional instructions issued to meet particular 
circumstances arising in the colony, rather than changes 
in the long list of instructions given to each governor at 
his appointment. The instructions supplemented the 
commission and furnished the governor with more de- 
tailed rules for the conduct of his of^ce.^ 

Although Morris had been recently engaged in an un- 
fortunate quarrel with John Hamilton, the president of 
the council, his past services to the province rendered 
his choice a most welcome one to the people of New 
Jersey. For a just estimate of his career it is necessary 
to review the earlier period of his public activity. A man 
of bold and decided principles, he was a prominent figure 
in the affairs of New York and New Jersey for many 
years. Although a shrewd politician, Morris was no less 
a statesman. His fearless stand against arbitrary officials 
upon more than one occasion during the early part of 
his public life commands admiration. ^ 

In 1692, he was appointed a judge of the court of com- 
mon right in New Jersey. Six years later, while Morris 
was a member of Governor Hamilton's Council, Jeremiah 
Basse arrived in the province, and claimed the governor- 
ship, although elected by an insufficient number of pro- 
prietaries. For resisting the arbitrary conduct of Basse, 
Morris was expelled from the council. With the over- 

' Tanner, p. 148 et seq. 

^For an analysis of Cornbury's instructions, see Tanner, p. 150 et seq. 
*See Morris Papers, "Introductory Memoir," and "The Morris 
Family of Morrisonia," Am. Hist. Magazine, vol. i, p. 33. 



26 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [26 

throw of Basse, and the return of Hamilton, however, he 
was returned to the counciL His probity and uncom- 
promising conduct won him the hatred of Lord Corn- 
bury, the first royal governor of New Jersey. Morris 
opposed the tyranny of Cornbury, only to find himself 
suspended from the council by that unworthy ofificial in 
1704. Queen Anne reinstated him, but a second suspen- 
sion at the hands of Cornbury almost immediately fol- 
lowed. Excluded from the upper house, Morris was 
elected to the popular branch of the legislature, where 
his influence was largely instrumental in securing the 
removal of the corrupt and unscrupulous governor. He 
was again restored to his seat in the council under the 
next executive. Except for a brief period, when Lieu- 
tenant Governor Ingoldsby attempted to drive him from 
the council, Morris continued in the upper house of New 
Jersey for many years. 

With the appointment of Hunter, as governor of New 
York and New Jersey, the scene of Morris's activity was 
transferred to the former province. Hunter and his suc- 
cessor Burnet were able and respected executives, whose 
administrations Morris supported with dignity and abil- 
ity. In 1715, he was appointed chief justice of New 
York under Governor Hunter. He continued to support 
the administrations, until the arrival of the arbitrary 
Cosby, as governor. Cosby and Rip Van Dam, the 
president of the New York council, became involved in 
a quarrel over salary, for the determination of which, the 
governor insisted on proceeding before the equity side 
of the Court of Exchequer. Chief Justice Morris refused 
to be a partner to Cosby's scheme, and opposed the 
action by delivering an opinion that the court was not 
regularly created and hence was illegal. Morris's sus- 
pension resulted from this bold defiance of the executive. 



27] THE GOVERNOR 27 

Thereupon the colony was divided between two bit- 
terly hostile factions. Deprived of his judicial position, 
Morris, now a popular idol, carried his case on appeal 
to England, while his son was sent to the assembly, where 
he led the opposition against Cosby. Before the crown 
officials, the ex-chief justice vindicated himself, and was 
still urging the necessity of Cosby's removal, when, in 
1736, that worthy died. Morris then returned to Amer- 
ica, where, in New York, he was received with great 
acclaim. Upon his return to New Jersey, he laid claim 
to the presidency of the council, by virtue of the royal 
instructions to the late governor, in which Morris was 
named as eldest councillor.' The council sustained 
Hamilton's contention, inasmuch as Morris was not re- 
siding in the colony when Cosby died, nor at the demise 
of Anderson, the president of the council who became 
acting governor at Cosby's death. The government pro- 
perly devolved upon Hamilton, whom only an express 
order of the king could divest of the presidency.^ 

Morris's main argument was that he had received cer- 
tain instructions addressed to him as president of the 
council. This discrepancy was readily accounted for 
from the fact that the home authorities had had notice 
of Cosby's death, but not of the swearing in of Anderson 
and Hamilton. The official documents were on that ac- 
count addressed to Morris, whose name still headed the 
list, because of a lack of information on the part of the 
home authorities. 3 Morris made some lengthy "' Obser- 
vations on the Reasons given by Hamilton's advisers," 
but hardly substantiated his position against the clear 
reading of the royal instruction.'' President Hamilton 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv. p. 538. ^ Ibid., vol. v, p. 474. 
^ Ibid., p. 481. ^Ibid., p. 491. 



28 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [28 

issued a proclamation against Morris, which at least led 
the testy councillor to desist from making good his threat 
to resort to force in support of his claims.' The report 
of the lords of trade, January, 1737, was against Morris.^ 
This decision was based chiefly upon his violation of a 
ro3'al instruction, which forbade a councillor absenting 
himself from the province for one year without the per- 
mission of the governor. His conduct was declared 
improper and such as to warrant the forfeiture of his 
seat in the council. 

Morris had doubtless made many influential friends 
during his long visit to England, and consequently, not- 
withstanding the unfavorable report of the lords of trade 
in the above dispute, received the appointment as gov- 
ernor of New Jersey. It was a position which he had 
some years before declared himself in favor of having.^ 
The people expressed real and evident satisfaction at 
this appointment, for during the recent contests with 
Cosby, Morris had become very popular. 

But the administration was still young, when the people 
learned by experience that the new governor assumed a 
different attitude upon public questions from that which 
he had previously taken. With the governorship in his 
own hands, no one was more insistent upon and careful 
of prerogative than he was. "Tandem Vincitur " the 
Morris family motto is said to have read, and in Lewis 
it had an able exponent. With a strong will and a rest- 
less disposition, power having come into his hands, he 
was intolerant of the views of others when in opposition 
to his own, and insisted upon the execution of his own 
plans. The governor became involved in violent and 

^ N. J. Archives, vol. v, p. 469. 

"^Ibid., p. 479. "^ Ibid., p. 314. 



29] THE GOVERNOR 29 

unseemly quarrels with the assembly, sending to the 
legislature long messages, well calculated to induce fruit- 
less wordy warfare. With advancing age his egotism led 
him to believe that his worth was not appreciated, and his 
administration, instead of being a popular one, was a 
disappointment to the people. Although his adminis- 
tration was a struggle with unwilling assemblies, it w^as 
a beneficial period for the province. This man, who had 
waged so many contests against unpopular executives, 
himself became one of the most unpopular. But it was 
neither corruption nor questionable political deals that 
caused his popularity to wane. The constant quarrels 
with the lower branch of the legislature were in large 
part aggravated by the eccentric and harsh temperament 
of the governor. 

That Morris was actuated by only the best motives 
cannot be doubted. In the exercise of his powers he 
adhered scrupulously to what he regarded as his duty to 
the king and compromised with none. A man of un- 
doubted ability, had he infused some tact into the exer- 
cise of his authority, his administration would have been 
far more successful. In religion, he was early in his 
career a strict conformist, but later his conformity waned. 
He disliked the Quakers, and was continually making 
assertions to the authorities in England against them, 
urging that none should be allowed to hold office. He 
died at Kingsbury, his estate near Trenton, on May 21, 
1746. The Morris administration was so unpopular that 
in the succeeding administration, an attempt on the part 
of the Morris family to obtain the governor's back pay 
was successfully frustrated by the assembly. 

The commission and instructions under which Morris 
governed New Jersey followed closely those of the former 



30 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [30 

executives.' In the commission there were only the 
necessary verbal changes, while the instructions show a 
few minor changes, in part caused by the institution of a 
separate governor for the province. A former instruc- 
tion providing that all goods imported or exported from 
New Jersey should pay as high duties as those from 
New York was withdrawn, as contrary to the royal in- 
structions to other governors. The instruction relating 
to the affirmation of Quakers was omitted, inasmuch as 
that was provided for by an act of the province. Mor- 
ris's instructions consisted of ninety-three articles. 

After the death of Governor Morris, John Hamilton, 
president of the council, took the oath, June 4, 1746, to 
act as governor until the appointment of a successor to 
Morris.^ A year later he died, and no governor having 
as yet arrived in the province, John Reading as eldest 
councillor assumed office, assuring the crown that it would 
be administered as faithfully as possible.^ The author- 
ities in England had decided on the new governor as 
early as July, 1746, when the lords of trade were directed 
to prepare the commission and instructions for Jonathan 
Belcher.* For some reason Belcher had neglected the 
payment of certain fees in connection with their issuance, 
and the proceedings were delayed for almost half a year.s 
Upon payment of the fees, the documents were signed 
and approved early in 1747, and New Jersey's new royal 
governor set sail for his new field of activity. 

^N. J, Archives, vol. vi, p. 2. * Ibid., vol. x, p. 452. 

^ Ibid., vol. vi, p. 462. *'Ibid., vol. vii, p. i. 

^ Ibid., vol. vi, p. 422. Mr. Paris, the agent of the East Jersey pro- 
prietors in England, thought that the fees had been paid with money 
collected by Partridge from Quakers, he having represented to them 
Belcher's services to the Quakers in Boston, as governor of Mass., and 
that the Quakers might reasonably expect his favor in N.J. In the 



31 ] THE GOVERNOR 3 1 

From the brief sketch of Governor ^Morris's Hfe, it was 
seen that the period of his popularity was during that 
part of his pubHc career previous to the appointment as 
governor of New Jersey. In the case of Governor 
Belcher the opposite was true. His conduct as governor 
of Massachusetts and New Hampshire became so obnox- 
ious to the people, that no steps, proper or improper, 
were omitted to secure his removal from his position. 
With Belcher, as was also the case with Morris, a proper 
estimate of the man is possible, only after a considera- 
tion of his work in New England.' 

Born in Cambridge, January 8, 1682, the son of 
Andrew Belcher, a wealthy Massachusetts merchant, 
Jonathan was educated at Harvard, where he was grad- 
uated in 1699. Having traveled abroad for several years 
after the completion of his college course, he returned 
to New England to become his father's business partner. 
In 1 718, he became a member of the Massachusetts 
council, at which board he served for seven years. His 
election to that body was vetoed by Governor Burnet in 
1729. Although Belcher had formerly had the reputa- 
tion of being a prerogative man, he managed to ingrati- 
ate himself with the popular party at about this time. 
When the contest between the representatives and Bur- 
net over the question of a permanent salary for the gov- 
ernor was most acute. Belcher was sent to England by 
the lower house to aid the regular provincial agent in 
converting the royal authorities to the colonial view- 
point. 

Belcher Papers under date of Nov. 16, 1747, there is a letter which 
Belcher wrote to his son in Boston, urging him to treat with kindness 
and respect "such as you fall in with from my Government (the 
Quakers especially)." 

'For Belcher's career, see "Preface" to Belcher Papers, published 
by the Mass. Historical Society, series vi, vols, vi and vii. 



32 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [32 

It is not evident that Belcher's influence counted for 
much in the affair on account of which he was sent 
abroad, but the trip resulted to his own personal good 
fortune. The special agent of the Massachusetts assem- 
bly had not been long in England, when Governor Bur- 
net died. As soon as the news of that gentleman's 
demise had crossed the ocean, ex-councillor Belcher 
turned his chief attention to securing the appointment 
as Burnet's successor in America. With evident ability 
in that direction, he successfully pulled the ofificial wires, 
and received the coveted appointment. It is said that 
former Governor Shute might again have received the 
appointment, but he refused the honor, and surrendered 
his interests to Belcher.' Shute was Belcher's debtor to 
the amount of £500, as the result of a fourteen-year-old 
transaction. 

The flop, which the newly appointed governor of Mas- 
sachusetts had made in 1729 from the prerogative to the 
popular party, was characteristic of his subsequent con- 
duct in New England politics. As with Morris later in 
New Jersey history, so with Belcher in Massachusetts 
and New Hampshire, his popularity was of short duration 
after he became the royal executive. Having returned 
to the colony with an instruction upon the question of a 
fixed salary, more distasteful to the New Englanders 
than Burnet's had been. Belcher determined to enforce 
it with as much exactness as his predecessor had done. 
His position was incongruous, to say the least. He was 
attempting to persuade the assembly of the colony of the 
propriety and necessity of a plan, which the preceding 
year he had been appointed and sent to England to 
oppose. Upon the question of the emission of paper 

' Hutchinson, History of Mass. Bay Colony, p. 367. 



33 J THE GOVERNOR 33 

money, Belcher also opposed the popular party. In 
Massachusetts, the governor was especially arbitrary in 
the matter of appointments, his conduct upon occasions 
being neither consistent nor warrantable. 

Nor was the governor's conduct unpopular in only the 
more powerful of the two colonies under his jurisdiction. 
His activities were resented in New Hampshire, where 
his indiscretions loomed perhaps larger than in the 
neighboring colony. His attitude toward New Hamp- 
shire in the boundary dispute with Massachusetts was a 
subject of complaint. It was the treatment of the lieu- 
tenant governors of the smaller colony that aroused the 
greatest opposition against Belcher. John Wentworth, 
who was lieutenant governor when Belcher was commis- 
sioned, soon felt the enmity of his superior. After the 
lieutenant governor's death, the most active opposition 
to Belcher in New Hampshire came from a party of 
Wentworth's adherents. David Dunbar, the next lieu- 
tenant governor, was so denuded of authority by Belcher 
that he became a mere nonentity in the government. 
The governor actually convened the council in Dunbar's 
house, without so much as noticing the latter.' 

The complaints against Governor Belcher, because of 
the disputes in both provinces, were naturally carried 
across the ocean. Every opportunity was taken to ren- 
der his position precarious with the home officials, in 
order that he would be removed. To effect this pur- 
pose, his opponents did not content themselves with 
stating only the facts, but sent forged and anonymous 
letters also to England. He was removed in May, 1741, 
and Shirley was appointed to succeed him. 

After retiring for a while to his estate at Milton, 

'Fry, New Hampshire as a Royal Province, p. 93. 



34 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [34 

Belcher went to England and succeeded in so far vindi- 
cating himself before the royal authorities that he was 
appointed to succeed Morris in New Jersey. This ap- 
pointment was doubtless due in part to the influence of 
his brother-in-law, Richard Partridge, the agent of New 
Jersey at court. Upon his arrival in America, as gov- 
ernor of New Jersey, he made Burlington his home, but 
in 1752 removed to Elizabethtown on account of his 
health. 

The usual congratulatory addresses were sent to the 
new governor, and indications pointed to a harmonious 
administration.' Throughout his term of office in New 
Jersey, he adopted a consistently mild and conciliatory 
policy, which made his administration deservedly popu- 
lar. His conduct was in great contrast to that of his 
predecessor in New Jersey, and to his own attitude in 
his former executive position. He would resist popular 
measures only when they brought him into conflict 
with positive instructions from the crown. Belcher be- 
lieved in his popularity also, for he writes in 1750, "I 
believe I am not Vain while I tell you were the Governor 
elective I believe I shou'd have 19 votes in 20 through- 
out the Province."" 

It was Belcher's misfortune, however, to hold office 
during the period when the land riots of the people 
against the proprietors became most violent. His evident 
desire to remain neutral in the quarrel and to act justly, 
led to representations being made against him in Eng- 
land by some of the proprietors, who charged him with 
countenancing the rioters.- Robert Hunter Morris, mis- 

' N. J. Archives, vol. iii, p. 13, 
'^ Belcher Papers, Nov. 7, 1750. 
^ Ibid. The letters written during August, 1757. 



35] THE GOVERNOR 33 

interpreting Belcher's neutrality in the land disputes 
for partiality, exerted his powerful influence while in 
London to secure his removal, but was unsuccessful. 
The governor attributed Morris's conduct in part to 
jealousy that " his late Father's administration was so 
imprudent and so abhorrent to the whole people and 
mine should be so much the reverse." ' An able defense 
of Belcher's conduct was made by the Presbytery of New 
Brunswick at their meeting in December, 1751, and a 
letter was addressed to the Earl of Holderness declaring 
as groundless reports against him, and asserting as the 
"current sentiments of the people" that Governor 
Belcher had done all in his power to suppress the lawless 
tumults.^ The governor compared his difficult sitiuation 
to steering " between sylla and charibdis that is to please 
the King's Ministers at home and a touchy People here 
or as we say at Sea to Lufif for one and to bear away for 
another. "3 The fear of removal was naturally distasteful 
to Belcher, and he wrote frequently to the Secretary of 
State defending his conduct, and urging that he should 
not be censured without first having the privilege of 
answering for himself the charges against him.* In the 
conduct of public affairs, Belcher was passive rather than 
active. He may justly be censured for not having had a 
definite constructive policy to cope with the difficult con- 
ditions in the province. His attitude was not assertive 
and he clearly lacked those qualities which make for 
leadership. The governor's interests were, in the main, 
those of the colonists, and he frequently urged the en- 
couragement of trade, agriculture and manufacturing. 

^ Belcher Papers, Aug. l6, 1751. 

'Hageman, Princeton and Its Instittitions. 

^Belcher Papers, June 8, 1751. *iV. J. Archives, vol. vii, p. 571. 



36 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [36 

A great degree of inconsistency cannot be charged 
against Governor Belcher in New Jersey affairs. 

His was a most interesting personaHty. It is revealed 
in the voluminous correspondence of this tireless letter- 
writer. Belcher's actions frequently fell far short of his 
professions. This was especially true of his career in 
New England, where he was not above duplicity. His 
extreme obeisance to his official superiors is hard to 
reconcile with the often unkind arbitrariness to those 
over whom he was officially superior. The governor 
was a very emotional man. The fervent religious spirit 
of Belcher's letters may sound like cant and osten- 
tatious piety, but in judging him the character of the 
age in which he lived should be considered. None of 
the New Jersey governors of this period did more to 
encourage and promote the religious and educational 
life of the province than did he. The founding of the 
College of New Jersey, now Princeton University, was 
due in no small degree to the earnest and patient efforts 
of Jonathan Belcher. 

Although Belcher was satisfied with the life in New 
Jersey, once writing, " If God and the King please I 
shou'd be glad to dye Gov of New Jersey," he longed to 
return at least for a visit to his relatives in New Eng- 
land.' In 1747 he had applied to the crown officials for 
a general leave of absence which would enable him to go 
to New England for two or three months when neces- 
sary. This general leave was not granted, but he was 
ordered to apply for a special license whenever it was 
necessary for him to go to New England.^ A leave of 

' Belcher Papers, June 8, 1751. We find in one of his letters the as- 
sertion that his tongue would cleave to the roof of his mouth when he 
forgot New England. 

*A^. J. Archives, vol. ii, pp. 449, 453. 



37] THE GOVERNOR 37 

absence was obtained early in 1750, but owing to the 
state of affairs in the province it remained unused.' 

In his later years Belcher was in declining health. 
Benjamin Franklin offered to aid him by electrical treat- 
ments, and after having consulted noted physicians in 
the colonies, the offer was accepted by the prospective 
patient, convinced that the experiment could be made 
"in moderation, without any fear of Injury."^ The 
honored governor died in 1757, his death causing genu- 
ine grief on the part of the people. We are told that 
the funeral service in the Presbyterian church at Eliza- 
bethtown, at which President Burr of the College of 
New Jersey preached the sermon, was very impressive. 
The sermon was later published with the title " A Ser- 
vant of God dismissed from Labor to Rest." 

The commission which Governor Belcher brought with 
him to America was in the usual form, and the m.odifica- 
tions in the instructions were few.^ An additional in- 
struction to Morris directing him to send aid to Nova 
Scotia was inserted in the present set, but owing to the 
war with France an instruction was now omitted relating 
to the treaty of neutrality between England and France in 
1686. The titles of three acts of the 15th, 17th and 19th 
years of George II relating to the Acts of Trade and 
Navigation were in Belcher's instructions. 

Upon the death of Governor Belcher an interesting 
situation arose in connection with the administration of 
the government. In 1755 Thomas Pownall had been 
appointed lieutenant governor of New Jersey, upon the 
expectation that he would soon become governor by 

'^Belcher Papers. Jan. 8, 1750. 

^ Belcher Papers, Oct. and Nov., 1751. 

'A''. J. Archives, vol. vii, p. 2 et seq. 



38 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [38 

Belcher's death.' The New Jersey governor not dying 
as soon as had been anticipated, Pownall was appointed 
to succeed Shirley of Massachusetts. In September, 1757, 
he was duly notified by Secretary Read of New Jersey of 
the governor's death. ^ 

As Pownall was absent from New Jersey, the adminis- 
tration fell to Reading, the oldest councillor, who refused 
to assume the chief authority, as he was aged and infirm 
and "not fit to bear the Weight or Burthen of Govern- 
ment." ^ At the earnest behest of the council and secre- 
tary, Reading did qualify by taking the oaths in order to 
prevent confusion in the colony, but urged that he be 
superseded or relieved by the appointment of some other 
person. Pownall came to New Jersey, but inasmuch as 
there was no unusual business requiring his attention, 
returned to Massachusetts, after having met the council 
and continued Reading in charge. He generously prom- 
ised to make the trip from Boston at any time that neces- 
sity required "more vigorous exertion" than Reading's 
state of health would allow. ■♦ To the lords of trade 
Pownall urged the immediate appointment of some per- 
son as governor of New Jersey, " with no connections 
with this country," especially because if Reading should 
die the administration would devolve upon Robert H. 
Morris, one of the chief proprietors, an event which he 
quite reasonably regarded would be most improper, at a 
time when the proprietors and people were at odds. 

There now followed in rapid succession three royal 
governors, with administrations so brief as scarce to leave 
any distinct impression on the colony. In June, 1758, 

' N. J. Archives, vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 102. 

- /bid., i>. 2S7. . ^ Idid., p. 260. 

^ Ibid., vol. xvii, p. 133. 



39] THE GOVERNOR 39 

Francis'Bernard took the oaths as governor of New Jer- 
sey.' A cultivated gentleman, having been educated at 
Oxford, Bernard was enthusiastically received in the 
province. But in November, 1759, he was appointed 
governor of Massachusetts Bay leaving New Jersey the 
next year, to the great regret of the assembly which 
esteemed his going "as a public loss."^ The departure 
was in marked contrast to his leave-taking at Boston, 
in August, 1769. 

In less than a month after the notification to Bernard 
of his new appointment, the representation of the lords 
of trade proposing Thomas Boone, a citizen of South 
Carolina, as governor of New Jersey was approved. ^ 
The honor thus conferred upon him was acknowledged 
by a letter from Charleston, South Carolina, to the 
lords of trade and another letter to those honorable 
gentlemen notified them of his arrival in New Jersey, 
and the publication of his commission at Perth Amboy 
and Burlington.'* Before he had been in New Jersey a 
year, Boone was, in April, 1761, appointed governor of 
South Carolina. 

Josiah Hardy, who had not had any previous connec- 
tion with the colonies, was the next person tried in New 
Jersey by the crown authorities. He arrived late in 
October, 1761, and after publishing his commission, met 
the legislature. 5 Conduct on the part of the governor, 
which the authorities regarded as illegal and unwar- 
ranted, cut short the administration of Hardy. He had 
granted commissions to the justices of the Supreme 
Court of the province to hold office during good be- 

' A'^. J. Archives, vol. xvii, p. 173. 

^Ibid., vol. ix, p. 188. ^ Ibid., p. 189. 

^ Ibid., pp. 205, 234. '" Ibid., p. 316. 



40 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [40 

havior. The lords of trade spoke very sternly against 
" so premeditated and unprecedented an Act of disobe- 
dience" on the governor's part,' and the attorney general 
reported that the appointments during good behavior 
v^ere contrary to the royal instructions, illegal and invalid.' 
Hardy was notified of his removal, and replying in a 
brief and dignified note, acknowledged the letter of re- 
moval from Egremont, but mentioned his ignorance as 
to the representations against him, and his never having 
been given an opportunity to justify his conduct. ^ 

The removal of Hardy was another disappointment to 
the people of New Jersey; not only because they were 
inclined to the governor personally, but because the 
frequent changes in administration were felt to be inju- 
rious to the colony. T)ie purse-strings were affected 
also, because it was customary to grant an extra £500 
to each governor at the beginning of a new administra- 
tion, as an aid to the payment of his transportation 
expenses. The assembly was beginning to count up 
these extra requisitions of the past few years, and as a 
matter of fact, the next governor did not receive one. 

The commissions granted to Bernard, Boone, and 
Hardy were in the usual form, indeed there would have 
been scant time to draft new ones, had there been any 
inclination, considering the slowness with which the 
machinery of government worked at that time in colonial 
affairs. In Bernard's instructions, one suspending the 
execution of laws emitting bills of credit until the royal 
pleasure was known was omitted, and for it substituted 
an instruction allowing the governor to assent to such 
acts in times of war or cases of emergency, under condi- 

' N. J. Archives, vol. ix, Ibid., p. 360. 

"^ Ibid., p. 380. "^ Ibid., p. 379. 



41 J THE GOVERNOR 41 

tions prescribed by the act of parliament of 1750.' Arti- 
cles which seemed obsolete were omitted, and others 
similar to those given to other royal governors inserted. 
The instructions to Boone were granted with only neces- 
sary verbal alterations. An important addition was 
made to the 27th article of Boone's instructions, when 
Governor Hardy's were issued.'' It directed the gover- 
nor to discourage attempts to set up manufactures or 
trades prejudicial to England. Some instructions had 
become useless because their objects were now provided 
for by provincial laws. Such were omitted. One of 
these was to secure the life, limb and property of the 
subject ; another directed proofs to be sent with prisoners 
to England; and a third provided that inhuman severities 
towards servants and slaves should be restrained. 

When William Franklin was appointed governor of 
New Jersey, there were in some quarters pronounced 
expressions made against him, one gentleman going so 
far as hot to doubt but that New Jersey would make a 
remonstrance against the appointment. ^ The ability 
which Franklin showed in governing New Jersey during 
a most trying period leaves one to conclude that the 
gross aspersions against him were due not to a lack of 
confidence in his abilities but on account of a feeling 
hostile to him because of his illegitimate birth. Born in 
1 73 1, the son of Benjamin Franklin, William had the 
opportunity of improving himself in the companionship 
of his learned parent, an advantage also which he did not 
neglect.'' When his father went to England as Penn- 
sylvania's colonial agent, the younger Franklin accom- 

^ N. J. Archives, vol. ix, p. 38. ^ Ibid., p. 272. 

" Duer, Life of Lord Stirling, pp. 68-71. 

* See the excellent biographical sketch of William Franklin by W 
A. Whitehead, A^. J. Hist. Soc. Proc, series i, vol. iii, p. 137. 



^2 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [42 

panied him. While in Europe he traveled extensively 
with his father and must have come in contact with 
many of the leading personages of the time. In 1762 
he was given an honorary degree of Master of Arts at 
Oxford. Through the influence of Lord Bute, William 
Franklin was appointed in August, 1762, to succeed 
Hardy as governor of New Jersey, and was the last 
royal governor of that province. Arrived in the colony 
in February of the next year, he was greeted with a 
demonstration "equal to his utmost wishes."' 

Governor Franklin's endeavors for the prosperity and 
welfare of the province were earnest and unremitting. 
Arriving in America at the conclusion of a long and 
expensive war, he urged upon Jerseymen the cultivation 
and promotion of the arts of peace. He himself became 
an active agriculturist, caring for a farm of considerable 
extent at Burlington, where he lived until 1774. At that 
date he moved to Perth Amboy, in order to call the 
council more freely during that critical period." Numer- 
ous measures of economic and social value to the colony 
secured his active support and encouragement. 

Had Franklin been governor of New Jersey a decade 
earlier, there is no reason to doubt that his administra- 
tion would have been far more successful than it was. 
It was upon that momentous question, dearest to the 
hearts of the patriots, that Franklin was a stranger to 
his people. He stood firmly in favor of the acts of the 
English ministry. His noted father aptly described him 
as "a thorough government man."^ it was the oppo- 
sition of the governor to the people on this vital subject 

' A'. /. Archives, ix, p. 383. '^ Ibid., vol. x, p. 459. 

* Letter of Oct. 6, 1773, to Wm. Franklin. Smyth, Life and Writ- 
ings of Benjamin Franklin, vol. vi, p. 144. 



43] THE GOVERNOR 43 

which brought him into conflict with them on other 
matters, in which under ordinary circumstances they 
would have supported him. But determined upon his 
course in favor of the royal officials in their contest with 
the colonies, Franklin saw it through to the bitter end, 
enduring separation from his wife and estrangement 
from his father. It is a tribute to his ability, that hold- 
ing such pronounced royalist views, Franklin maintained 
himself as long as he did as governor of the province. 
The detailed account of Franklin's conduct during the 
Revolution will be reserved for a later chapter. 

Attention may here be called to the minor executive 
officers in the colony. Reference has been made to the 
appointment of Thomas Pownall in 1755 as lieutenant 
governor. His was the second and last royal commis- 
sion to such an office in the province. The only other 
lieutenant governor had been Richard Ingoldsby, com- 
missioned as such at the institution of royal government 
in New Jersey. The office seemed to have proven itself 
a useless expense and was abolished until the appoint- 
ment of Pownall. The apparent motive in the appoint- 
ment of Pownall was to have a competent person " upon 
the Spot" to succeed Belcher at his death,' but this great 
anxiety to insure the smooth succession of governors in 
New Jersey does not appear to have troubled the lords 
of trade after Ingoldsby's time. Perhaps Pownall wanted 
a colonial office and it was awarded to him through the 
influence of his brother, then secretary of the lords of 
trade. 

Belcher, though congratulating Pownall upon his ap- 
pointment, advised Partridge, the London agent, to be 
watchful " in a silent manner " that the new officer should 

'A'. J. Archives, vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 102. 



44 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [44 

not attempt anything prejudicial to him.' His suspicions 
that Pownall would not scruple anything for his own 
advancement, he declares to be not without reason.' 
What his apprehensions were does not appear. In view 
of the fact that a lieutenant governor had not been com- 
missioned for New Jersey for over half a century, and 
that representations had been made against the governor, 
it does not seem unnatural that Belcher should have been 
apprehensive. 

Pownall's commission had given him authority to act 
as governor in case of the latter's death or absence. ^ In 
May, 1756, Belcher was directed to authorize the lieuten- 
ant governor to act in his stead, whenever his age and 
infirmity made it " painfull and hazardous if not imprac- 
ticable" for him to attend any meetings of the govern- 
ors which the Earl of Loudoun, commander of the royal 
troops in America, might appoint.'* Pownall's subse- 
quent connection with New Jersey affairs has been men- 
tioned, and after him no other lieutenant governor was 
appointed. Thereafter the administration of affairs dur- 
ing the intervals between governorships was intrusted, 
according to the royal instructions, to the oldest coun- 
cilor, who as president of the council thus came to have 
a definite and distinct position in fact, as well as in name.s 

The provincial secretary and attorney general held 
office by royal patent. It was common practice for the 
royal appointee to farm the office of secretary out to a 
deputy, who in turn might entrust the actual conduct of 
affairs to clerks. This method was not conducive to the 

'A^. J. Archives, vol. viii, pt. ii, pp. 135, 139. ^ Ibid., p. 190. 

^ Ibid., p. 106. * Ibid., p. 215. 

* Before the issuance of Pownall's commission such had been the 
practise after Ingoldsby's time. 



^5] THE GOVERNOR 45 

attainment of the best results. In 1769 Governor Frank- 
lin wrote that the secretary came to Burlington only 
during the sessions of the court, but that he desired the 
next appointee to reside in the capital city.' The gov- 
ernor referred to Joseph Reed, deputy at that time, who 
shortly thereafter did resign, and was succeeded by a 
person concerning whom there was less cause for adverse 
criticism. 

The secretary's commission was held by an English 
gentleman named Burnet in 1739, Archibald Home act- 
ing as deputy in the province. "" William Peters of 
Pennsylvania sought the commission as secretary in 
1741, but the best efforts of John Ferdinand Paris in his 
behalf were of no avail. ^ After the death of Burnet, 
Home continued to hold the deputyship until his own 
demise. In order that the public business should not 
be inconvienced, James Home was appointed deputy- 
secretary on the decease of his brother Archibald.'* The 
date of his commission was March 13, 1744. Then 
Christopher Coates, became secretary of the province. 

In 1745 Charles Read received a commission to hold 
the deputyship during the royal pleasure.^ It is recited 
that James Home intends to remove to another colony, 
doubtless South Carolina. The new deputy secretary 
took the oaths to the government and for the due execu- 
tion of the offices of secretary and clerk of council on 
November 10, 1744. For the next two or three decades 
Read held other prominent official positions. His signa- 

^ N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc, vol. i, p. 109. 

* N. J. A., vol. xii, p. 154. 

"A^. J. MSS., pp. loi, 107, in the Pennsylvania Hist. Soc. Library. 

* Liber A A A of Proviticial Commissions, p. 254. 
^I6id., p. 258. 



46 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [46 

ture was affixed to documents until 1767. Inasmuch as 
he was re-commissioned secretary in 1762,' Read's in- 
cumbency in the office doubtless was not continuous 
from 1745 to 1762. Under date of March 17, 1761, an 
order of council directed the lords of trade to prepare 
a warrant continuing Christopher Coates in the office of 
secretary.'' 

Maurice Morgan, "of Parliament Street, Westminis- 
ter," was granted the commission of secretary of New 
Jersey on June 18, 1767.3 As his agent in the province 
he deputed Joseph Reed later in the same month. In 
January of the following year Morgan was confirmed in 
his position by a commission which appointed him to 
the "Offices or Places of Secretary, Clerk of the Council, 
Clerk of the Supreme Court, Clerk of the Pleas, Surro- 
gate and Keeper and Register of Records." "^ Morgan 
apparently retained his commission to the end of the 
provincial era. In October, 1769, Deputy Secretary 
Reed retired in favor of Charles Pettit, his brother-in- 
law, who had been associated with Reed in the duties of 
his numerous offices. ^ The new deputy took the oaths 
before Chief Justice Smyth on November 3, 1769, the 
day upon which he was licensed as an attorney-at-law.^ 
Continued in office by the council and assembly of the 
State of New Jersey in 1776, he resigned two years later 
in favor of his brother-in-law, Bowes Read.^ 

Provincial New Jersey boasted of two receivers-gen- 
eral or treasurers appointed by the governor for unlimited 

' Liber A A A of Provincial Commissions , p. 366. 

^JV. J. A., vol. ix, p. 357; vol. X, p. 366. 

^ Liber A B of Provincial Commissions, p. 4. * Ibid., p. i. 

''Ibid., p. 2)7'> ^- J- A., vol. x, p. 133. ^ Ibid., p. 40, 

"^Ibid., p. 186. 



47] THE GOVERNOR 47 

terms. There was a treasurer for each division of the 
province with a salary of £40 per annum. As will be 
seen, the assembly of New Jersey practically gained the 
power of dictating the appointments to this office. The 
East Jersey treasurer in 1738 was Andrew Johnston. 
Upon his death, in 1762, Stephen Skinner received the 
appointment at the hands of Governor Hardy.' After the 
robbery of the treasury chest in his house. Skinner's res- 
ignation was forced by the assembly in 1773, and John 
Smyth appointed. Stirred by the treasury theft, the as- 
sembly passed an act obliging the treasurers to enter 
into bonds for the faithful execution of the office. Smyth 
was the first treasurer appointed during the operation of 
this law. In West Jersey John Allen, who had been 
appointed by Governor Burnet, retained the office until 
1750. For the twenty-five years following, Samuel 
Smith, the historian, acted in a like capacity. Upon his 
resignation in 1775, Franklin appointed Joseph Smith to 
the office, and on May 20th of that year the assembly 
pronounced his bond satisfactory. 

Many of the other officers received commissions from 
the governor. These included the provincial and county 
judges and justices of the peace, sheriffs and militia offi- 
cers. Customs officers for New Jersey were usually 
commissioned by the surveyor general of customs for 
the colonies. The proprietary surveyors general will be 
mentioned in a later chapter. 

^ N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 366. 



CHAPTEP II 

The Council — Position and Personnel 

The council acted in a dual capacity, as an advisory- 
body to the governor, and as the upper house of the 
legislature.' In the former capacity it had many import- 
ant functions, among them the necessity of giving advice 
in and consent to the establishment of courts, the erec- 
tion of forts, expenditures of the public money and other 
important matters. The council had a general supervi- 
sion over the administration. In legislation it was the 
theory that the council and assembly stood on an equality, 
but in practice this was not the case. With success, the 
assembly stubbornly maintained the principle that the 
council could neither originate nor amend money bills. 
This position was deprecated by governors and home 
authorities, but the assembly would not abate one jot. 
This naturally gave rise to serious legislative conflicts, 
which were, however, not unique in the history of any 
one English colony. The council also had judicial duties 
in cases of appeal to the governor and council from the 
provincial courts. 

The governors before Morris had presided at the leg- 
islative, as well as the administrative, sessions of the 
council. The serious objection to this practice was that 
it gave the executive undue influence in legislation. It 
was one of the complaints which Morris had made 
against Governor Cosby, ^ and when the former became 

'Tanner, op. cit., ch. xvii, and ch. xviii. 
^ N. J. A., vol. vii, p. jy. ^ Ibid., vol. xv, p. 19. 

48 [48 



49 J THE COUNCIL ^g 

governor he consistently desisted from presiding over 
the legislative deliberations of the upper house, an action 
which deservedly merited the approval that it received 
from the legislature. The assembly was conscious of 
the advantage of having the council sit " as a separate 
and distinct part of the legislature; for all former gover- 
nors have presided in that House, in a legislative capacity, 
which not only very much influenced their debates, but 
often produced very bad effects, and greatly thwarted 
and obstructed the despatch of public business."' That 
Morris believed in their right to act in a legislative 
capacity apart from the governor, the council had no 
reason to doubt, and reminding him " of the ill conse- 
quences which have ever attended and again may attend 
a Governor's presiding, and voting amongst us in a 
Legislative Capacity," expressed their gratitude for the 
action he had taken. ^ This action of Morris's was most 
commendable, decreased his power not in the least, while 
it did encourage legislative harmony. 

Gov. Belcher, however, deemed it to be " for the good 
of the Province, that he should be present when any Bill 
was Debating in Council," ^ and coming to the council 
on New Year's Day, 1746, informed his councillors that 
he wished merely to listen to the debates in order better 
to judge of the necessity of any measure, would continue 
to attend for that purpose, but " did not intend to vote 
or otherwise to Intermeddle with or Direct any of the 
Proceedings of the Council in their Legislative Capac- 
ity." The next day Morris moved that a committee 
might be appointed to consider the governor's claim, 
because compliance would affect the rights of the upper 
house. What the committee report was is not known, 

^ Assembly Journal, Oct. 28, 1738. 

* N. J. A., vol. XV, p. 19. ^ Ibid., vol. xv, p. 567. 



CO THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [30 

but there is no indication that the governor persisted in 
his purpose, doubtless concluding that the king's service 
would not be best conserved by stirring up needless 
opposition in the council. There is, however, a letter 
from James Alexander to Joseph Murray, an eminent 
lawyer and member of the New York council, asking 
him for information as to the motives that " induced Mr. 
Clark to Desist from Setting with the Council in their 
Legislative Capacity," and submitting certain queries 
upon the subject to which answers are requested.' It 
was the intention also to send a copy of these queries to 
each of the royal governments asking for the desired 
information.* 

A relic of the former recognized division of the terri- 
tory into East and West Jersey remained in the make-up 
of the council also. There were six councillors for each 
division, an arrangement frequently provocative of an- 
noyance and a source of difficulty in making appoint- 
ments. In accordance with a royal instruction to the 
governors, a list of twelve persons qualified to act as 
councillors, six from each division of the province, was 
to be at the disposal of the authorities in England. Ac- 
cording to the instructions to both Morris and Belcher, 
the royal Surveyor General of Customs was to " sit and 
vote in the Council as a Councillor Extraordinary." ^ It 
was usually difficult to obtain a quorum, which was three 
members.'' At such times, much to the detriment of the 
public service, as well as the annoyance of the faithful 

' N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 7y. . -Ibid., p. 70. 

'^ Ibid., vol. vi, p. 15. 

* Morris's commission said that three should be a quorum, but in the 
instructions he was directed not to act with a quorum of less than five, 
"unless upon Extraordinary Emergencies, when a greater Number 
cannot be conveniently had." 



51 ] THE COUNCIL 51 

members, adjournment would be made from day to day. 
until the requisite number appeared. In some cases 
there were proper excuses for absence but frequently it 
was neglect. At the beginning of Morris's administra- 
tion the annoyance was such that the council asked the 
governor to lay before them the royal instructions in the 
matter, and ordered the absent members to attend.' In 
November, 1739, after certain members had been sum- 
moned thrice, they were warned that all excuses were 
futile, and that persisting to be neglectful, their cases 
would be laid before the king.'' A recommendation of 
Governor Morris that stated council meetings should be 
held quarterly on the last Tuesday of March, June, Sep- 
tember and December at the governor's residence, was 
agreed to by the council, December 4, 1739.^ The object 
was to obviate the difBculty of members attending meet- 
ings upon short notice, the agreement being regarded 
as a summons to meet on the days indicated. Extra 
sessions were, of course, to be held in the discretion of 
the governor. This simple arrangement overcame in 
great part the difficulties which it had been sought to 
remedy. The attendance of councillors, however, was 
even later, in 1744, a matter of caustic comment on the 
part of the assembly.'' 

The personnel of the council was in general high, its 
membership including many of the most able and in- 
fluential men in the province. In no small degree was 
the governor responsible for the character of his coun- 
cil, for his recommendations of persons qualified to act 
as councillors were almost without exception accepted. ^ 

^A''. J. A., vol. XV, p. 25. "^Ibid., p. 94. 

^ Ibid., p. 104. ^ Ibid., p. 369. 

* The majority of Belcher's recommendations, however, were re- 
jected. 



52 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [52 

The governor also had the power to suspend councillors, 
but in cases of suspension was to transmit a detailed 
account to the king. Although from these circum- 
stances it might appear that the royal executive exer- 
cised considerable influence over the council, as was in- 
deed the case, they were by no means servile to him. In 
upholding the royal prerogative against popular en- 
croachments, their interests were common, but when 
those interests diverged, governor and council frequently 
came into conflict. 

Exclusive of John Peagrum, Surveyor General of Cus- 
toms and Councillor Extraordinary, the following were 
appointed to the council by Morris's instructions : John 
Hamilton, John Wills, John Reading, Cornelius Van 
Horn, William Provost, John Schuyler, Thomas Farmer, 
John Rodman, Richard Smith, Robert Lettice Hooper, 
Robert Hunter Morris, and Jeremiah Lyell, the first five 
of whom had been councillors under the old adminis- 
tration, the others being newly appointed. Of these, 
Hooper, who was chief justice of New Jersey from 1725 
to 1738 with the exception of about a year and a half, 
had died a month before the lords of trade had submitted 
the list to the king. Wills, because of old age, and Van 
Horn, because of business affairs, were dismissed at their 
own request.' Provost was suspended in 1740 because 
of persistent refusals to attend, and Schuyler being part 
owner " of the famous Jersey Coppermine " was dis- 
charged because council attendance prejudiced his pri- 
vate affairs.'' Among the discharged members, Morris 
thought the public service suffered only in the loss of 
Schuyler, which may account for his readiness to dismiss 
them. 

' A^. J. A., vol. XV, p. 121. * Ibid., vol. vi, p. 105. 



53] THE COUNCIL 53 

Thomas Farmer had been chief justice from March, 
1728, to November, 1729, but had probably been re- 
moved because of insanity. Cosby had recommended 
him for the council in 1734, and his name -^appears in 
Morris's instructions, but representing Middlesex County 
in the assembly at that time, he retained that position, 
and did not move to the other house. Thus reduced to 
but six members resident in the province, Morris, con- 
sistent with his instructions, appointed Peter Baynton, 
who of all the trustees appointed by the assembly to 
furnish certain supplies for the troops acted according to 
the governor's ideas of proper conduct.' Smith and 
Rodman were both West Jersey Quakers, the former 
having been characterized by Morris at an earlier time 
as "a quiet inofifensive person," the latter as "a man of 
good temper of a good estate in Jersie and Pensilvania 
and generally well esteemed both by Quakers and 
others."^ Regarding Lyell little is known, except that 
he was a Perth Amboy merchant. 3 Reading, a West 
Jersey proprietor, was an influential member of the 
council, having been councillor since 1720 under Burnet. 
He it was who objected to assuming the administration 
at Belcher's death. Princeton College received freely of 
his wealth and energies, and indeed his death deprived 
the province of one of its most honored servants.* Of 
three other councillors, John Hamilton, R. H. Morris, 

^ N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 106. 

"^ [bid., vol. V, p. 317. ^Ibid., p. 155. 

* There is a letter in the Belcher Papers, under date of Dec. 16, 1747, 
showing that Reading asked permission to resign as early as that 
date, but he was not actually relieved from duties until 1758. The 
letter is such a characteristic Belcher epistle that an extract is here 
given. After regretting the necessity of Reading's resignation, the 
governor continues, " I wish your Fears," evidently regarding his own 
and Mrs. Reading's health, "may be turned into Joye and thanksgiv- 



C4 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [54 

and James Alexander who served from the beginning of 
Morris's administration, a more extended account should 
be given. 

The son of Andrew Hamilton, the last provincial gov- 
ernor under the proprietors, John Hamilton was ap- 
pointed to the council under Hunter.' This was his first 
appointment to public office, but as early as 1694 his 
name became known in connection with the first estab- 
lishment of post offices in America. He was appointed 
second judge of the Supreme Court in 1735, but later 
resigned the position because the salary would " scarce 
maintain a foot-man."* The result of the contest for 
the council presidency did not leave Morris kindly dis- 
posed to Hamilton, and we find the governor mentioning 
to the lords of trade in May 1739, that Hamilton though 
a councillor for West Jersey, lives in East Jersey, and to 
his knowledge has never had an estate in the former 
division, evidently not unwilling that the Lords should 
regard such a course as improper. ^ In fact Morris with 
questionable dignity soon became involved in a more 
pronounced contest with Hamilton. After the warrants 
for salaries had been signed in 1739, Hamilton applied 
for the portion of his salary as council president, up to 
that time unpaid. Morris not only refused to grant 
that, but notified the councillor, that he should pay 
Morris the money received by him as president of the 
upper house since Morris's arrival in 1736.'* After an in- 

ing, on Mrs. Reading's ace' — you know Its easy for our Bless'd Saviour 
to Say to you as to the Noble man in the Gospel in a Like occasion — 
thy Wife Liveth— and in your own Case as to the poor Paralitick— 
Arise and take up thy Bed and Walk. But these things Sir we Are to 
humbly hope for in Faith and Prayer." 

' N. J. A., vol. iv, p. 182. ^Morris Papers, p. 48. 

"• Tbid., p. 54. ^N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 69. 



"3] THE COUNCIL ^^ 

terval of four years the governor, in March 1743, brought 
suit against Hamilton for £3,000 damages, and the latter 
asked the lords of trade for a letter certifying the incor- 
rectness of the governor's attitude.' To his satisfaction, 
the lords of trade informed Hamilton that from March 
1736 until the issue of Morris's commission theyfchad 
regarded him as "the legal President and Commander 
in Chief of the Provinces of East and West Jersey." - 
The governor's position in that matter was clearly un- 
warranted. It was perhaps the irony of fate that John 
Hamilton should outlive Morris and become acting gov- 
ernor again at the latter's death. 

Robert Hunter Morris, one of the new members of his 
father's council, having great natural ability and favored 
with unusual advantages, developed into one of the ablest 
men of this period of New Jersey's history. Upon the 
death of Hooper, young Morris was appointed by his 
father, with the approval of the council, as chief justice 
of the province, a position which he held for twenty-six 
years. During this time he was absent for five years in 
England, going on a mission for the council, but also 
doubtless interested in the appointment as lieutenant 
governor of New York. He returned, however, in 1754 
with the commission of governor of Pennsylvania, a 
position which proved uncongenial and was resigned 
after two years. One of the most active of the East 
Jersey proprietors, he was constantly solicitous for their 
interests. Opposed to Belcher's conduct in the land 
riots, he became an aggressive opponent of that gover- 
nor, influencing the crown's appointments to that gen- 
tleman's council, and making him fear lest he should 
lose the governorship. He died suddenly while attend- 

^ N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 151. ^ Ibid., p. 153. 



^6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [56 

ing a dance at Shrewsbury, in January, 1764. The his- 
torian Smith wrote, " Unhappy Jersey has lost her best 
ornament." ' 

At a time when the rights of the New Jersey proprie- 
tors were so violently opposed, they were fortunate to 
have two such able intercessors in the government as 
Robert Hunter Morris and James Alexander. Not only 
is Alexander's name omitted from the list in Governor 
Morris's instructions, but the lords of trade in reporting 
to the king remarked that " We have been informed that 
he is a Person not proper to serve in that Station," 
Their informant had been Governor Cosby, to whom 
Alexander became particularly obnoxious in connection 
with the famous Zenger trial, in which trial he had vol- 
unteered his services in defence of John Peter Zenger. 
Although he came to America in 1716 in order to escape 
the possible consequences of his having aided the Eng- 
lish Pretender, he appeared to have Whig principles in 
the colonies, where his advancement was rapid. He was 
surveyor general of both New York and New Jersey, as 
well as a councillor in both provinces. An order rein- 
stating Alexander in the council does not appear, but 
Morris improperly regarded him as a member in May, 
1739,^ and at that time included his name in a list of 
councillors submitted to the lords of trade. 

The truth is there was some questionable maneuvering 
on the part of the proprietary interests regarding Alex- 
ander's appointment to the council. Paris, the pro- 
prietary agent, stated that clerical blunders caused the 
omission of Alexander's name from the Morris instruc- 
tions, but this cannot be reconciled with the statement 

' For an excellent sketch of Mr. Morris, see Field, Provincial Courts, 
p. 144. 

'* Morris Papers, p. 54. 



57] THE COUNCIL 57 

regarding Alexander when Morris's instructions were 
sent to the king for approval. Charles Read, at Belcher's 
suggestion, was named a councillor in the original in- 
structions of that official, Paris represented, or mis- 
represented, the facts in such a way to the lords of trade 
that they recalled Belcher's commission and instructions, 
destroyed the first sheet, engrossed it with Alexander's 
name, and omitted Read's. 

Residing in New York, he rarely attended council 
meetings and Morris excused his absence to the home 
authorities on the ground that he was building a house.' 
Alexander was an able supporter of the governor and 
his loss on the council would have been felt. In the 
legal profession he stood high, having been the author 
of the Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, while he was a 
scientist of ability, and one of the founders of the "Amer- 
ican Philosophical Society." In connection with the 
New York and New Jersey boundary dispute, and the 
efforts of the proprietors to assert their claims against 
the people, the name of James Alexander must ever be 
recorded in New Jersey history. He died in 1756 while 
on a trip to Albany, his place on the New Jersey coun- 
cil being filled by the appointment of his illustrious son, 
William Alexander, Earl of Stirling, one of the generals 
of the Revolution. 

As the council stood in October, 1749, there were only 
four members from each division, making it difficult to 
obtain a quorum. Morris urged the appointment of 
Archibald Home and John Allen, for the western division, 
and Edward Antill and Richard Ashfield for the eastern 
division. Allen, who was the West Jersey treasurer, and 
Ashfield, who had been recommended by Morris to give 

^ N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 107. 



^8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [58 

the proprietors additional influence, were not appointed.' 
Home, whose special qualification seemed to be that as 
he was clerk of the council and obliged to attend, a 
quorum would be more readily obtained, was appointed 
and served until his death in 1745.^ Antill, who was 
Governor Morris's son-in-law, and an East Jersey pro- 
proprietor, was also appointed. Morris hoped and be- 
lieved he " would prove a useful and deserving member," 
as indeed he had up to this time in the assembly.^ He 
served until suspended by Boone in 1761 for non-attend- 
ance, which suspension was confirmed by the royal 
officials. "♦ 

By 1745 the deaths of Lyell, Baynton and Home had 
depleted the council, rendering the conduct of busi- 
ness so difficult that the assembly complained. ^ Conse- 
quently the governor urged upon the lords of trade the 
desirability of having a full council, in order to leave as 
little room as possible to "the Assembly for murmur or 
clamor."^ To complete the twelve, in January, 1745, 
Andrew Johnston, Peter Kemble, James Hude, John 
Coxe, and Thomas Leonard were recommended, all of 
whom subsequently were appointed. ^ Andrew Johnston 
was a Perth Amboy merchant, a prominent East Jersey 
proprietor, and was speaker of the assembly from 1740 
until his entrance upon duties as a councillor. His repu- 
tation was of the highest, the New York " Mercury " print- 
ing at his death the statement that "he was really equal to 
what Pope means when he says ; ' An honest man is the 

' N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 109. '^ Ibid., p. 127. 

^ Ibid., p. no. *Ibid., vol. ix, p. 299. 

'^ Ibid., vol. vi, p. 232. ^Morris Papers, p. 220. 

' iV, J. A., vol. vi, p. 2T,2,. Of these five men, four were pallbearers 
at Morris's funeral. 



59] THE COUNCIL 59 

noblest work of God ! ' " ' Peter Kemble was an East 
Jersey merchant. Hude was a prominent citizen of New 
Brunswick, who performed with credit the duties of num- 
erous public offices, and was according to the New York 
"Mercury," distinguished "for his great probity, justice, 
affability, moral and political virtues."^ The John Coxe 
whom Governor Morris recommended was the grandson 
of the Dr. Daniel Coxe, prominent in the earlier history 
of the province. His appointment added to the council 
another influential proprietor, as he was a prominent 
member of the West Jersey council of proprietors. Dur- 
ing the land disputes in Governor Belcher's administra- 
tion he was so active in support of the proprietors, that 
threats were made against his person and property.^ 
With Robert Hunter Morris and James Alexander, he 
became one of Belcher's bitter opponents, unbridling his 
tongue to such an extent that the governor suspended 
him from the council. The affidavits which were sent to 
England readily convinced the authorities of the pro- 
priety of the suspension, and Belcher was upheld by 
Coxe's removal in 1751.'* As early as Governor Hun- 
ter's administration, Thomas Leonard had been recom- 
mended in 1718 for the council. ^ He was a prosperous 
land holder living near Princeton, who served the com- 
munity in public office, and as trustee of Princeton Col- 
lege for many years. Because of infirmity he resigned 
his seat in the upper house in 1759.^ There were no 
other changes in the council under Morris. 

' New York Merctiry, July 5, 1762. 

"^ Ibid., Nov. I, 1762. The quotation may be recognized as an ab- 
stract from an obituary notice. 

^ N. J. A., vol. vi, pp. 467, 470; vol. vii, p. 450. 

''Ibid., vol. vii, pp. 540-550, 589. 

"Ibid., vol. iv, p. 2)11 ■ ^ Ibid., vol. ix, p. 127. 



6o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [60 

It was without doubt Morris's desire to surround him- 
self in the council with some of the ablest men in the 
colony. The difficulty of inducing men of the proper 
calibre to act as councillors was aggravated, Morris 
complained, because of the insufficient salary. The gov- 
ernor, however, was a politician, in the ordinary sense 
of the word, and sought to have his council first of all 
friendly to government. The council, as constituted 
during the latter part of his rule, gave the proprietary 
interests a predominating influence, and made it an ob- 
ject of suspicion on the part of the people who were 
opposing the proprietors. That was perhaps a natural 
result, and it cannot be said that the governor used his 
power improperly. He acted the part of a shrewd poli- 
tician, safeguarding his interests. To a man like Belcher, 
who sought to conciliate the opposing elements in the 
province, the council which Morris bequeathed him was 
a handicap, a source of annoyance, if not indeed a 
menace. 

The royal instructions to Belcher properly named as 
his councillors Hamilton, Reading, Alexander, Rodman, 
Smith, Morris, Antill, Hude, Coxe, Johnston, Kemble 
and Leonard, all of whom except the three first named 
had been appointed upon Governor Morris's recom- 
mendation.' The Surveyor General of Customs, Thomas 
Lechmere, was appointed Councillor Extraordinary. 
The first change was occasioned by the death of Ham- 
ilton, There now began a contest between Belcher and 
the proprietary interests for the control of council ap- 
pointments, a contest in which the advantage was gained 
by the proprietors. 

In June, 1748, Belcher recommended that Charles 

* A^, J. A., vol. vii, p. 6. 



6i] THE COUNCIL 5^ 

Read, a deputy secretary of the province and collector 
of customs at Burlington should be appointed.' He 
resided in West Jersey, and about the same time the 
governor recommended him to the West Jersey pro- 
prietors as an agent qualified to look after their inter- 
ests.* On the other hand, his appointment was so vig- 
orously opposed by Paris, the East Jersey proprietary 
agent and Robert Hunter Morris in London, that their 
man, Richard Salter, was appointed. ^ The " imagina- 
c'ons " of the lords of trade, that Belcher had submitted 
for confirmation certain acts of the legislature in which 
he was interested, were encouraged by Paris, and he con- 
summated this "bold Stroke," as he terms it. Belcher 
complained of this appointment on the ground that a 
West Jerseyman should have received it in order to 
maintain the equality of the provincial divisions, the ap- 
pointment of an East Jerseyman at this time not being 
in conformity to his instructions.^ The appointee was a 
man of considerable ability, and served also for almost 
ten years as associate judge of the Supreme Court.- He 
served in the council until his death in 1763. 

The struggle for control of the council continued with 
the subsequent recommendations. In the place of Coxe, 
whose suspension has been mentioned, the governor 
recommended William Morris, a Hunterdon County 
judge, at the same time warning agent Partridge that 
"the young GentP^ on y"" Side the Water Perhaps May 
Oppose it at y^ Board of Trade and Say he is a Quaker 

' A^. J. A., p. 139. '^ Ibid., p. 150. 

^ Ibid., pp. 169, 175. *^ Ibid., p. 247. 

* Read himself urged Salter for the chief justiceship, so that there evi- 
dently was no hard feeling between the two men. 
« Robert Hunter Morris. 



62 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [62 

&c." ' The recommendation was successfully opposed, 
and David Ogden, an associate with Alexander and 
R. H. Morris in extensive land deals, was appointed/ 
Ogden was a distinguished lawyer, and as one of the 
counsel for the proprietors in suits against the Eliza- 
bethtown associates became unpopular with the people. 
A man of conspicuous ability and integrity, he was in 
1772 appointed a judge of the Supreme Court, which 
position he filled until his opposition to open resistance 
against the mother country led him to seek safety within 
the British lines in New York City, where he became an 
active loyalist. " He was looked upon as an oracle of 
the law, and his opinions had almost the weight of 
judicial decisions." ^ 

Upon the death of Richard Smith in November, 1750, 
Belcher recommended his son Samuel for the position. 
He was a West Jersey Quaker, and both he and his 
father had always supported the people against the pro- 
prietors. Consequently opposition to Samuel Smith's 
appointment was a foregone conclusion, and the pro- 
prietors succeeded in having Lewis Ashfield appointed 
to fill the vacancy. Governor Belcher was reproved for 
recommending Samuel Smith, and for having previously 
recommended William Morris, because, in the opinion of 
the lords of trade, they were " Persons disaffected to 
His Majesty's Government."'* Lewis Ashfield, nephew 
of Robert H. Morris, was recommended by the lords of 
trade to supply the vacancy, and was appointed April 
30, 1751.^ The reproof administered by the home offi- 
cials quite naturally displeased the governor, and afifi- 

^N. J. A., vol. vii, pp. 575, 577. 

''Ibid., pp. 578, 588. ' Field, op. cit., p. 182 et seg. 

*N.J. A., vol. vii, p. 585. ^ Ibid., pp. 585, 590. 



63] THE COUNCIL 63 

davits testifying to the uprightness of Morris's character 
were sent for Partridge to lay before the lords of trade.' 
With the discrediting of Belcher's nominations, a lack of 
harmony in the government naturally resulted, and Part- 
ridge was urged to secure Morris's appointment to the 
next vacancy.^ Belcher wrote repeatedly to the royal 
ofificials that government was weakened when private 
persons and subordinate officials directed the council 
appointments, and urged that his administration be not 
misrepresented to them by Morris "or any other 
Splenetick Gent^"^ 

It was only after a long contest, however, that Gov- 
ernor Belcher allowed Ashfield to take his seat in the 
council. The governor's opportunity came, when, in 
October 21, 1751, a bill of indictment was brought 
against Ashfield for having profanely sworn against the 
king's laws, and having at the same time made an assault 
upon John Hite, a Middlesex County constable.'* The 
alleged assault was committed on August 4, 1751, and 
on September 24 Ashfield presented his mandamus to 
the council to the governor, who notified him, however, 
that not until he was acquitted of the charge of which 
he stood indicted, would he be admitted to his seat.' 
The council asked Belcher to lay before them proofs to 
show his authority in refusing the would-be councillor 
admission, but the governor refused to comply with 
their request.^ Ashfield memorialized the council with 
his side of the case, submitting certain affidavits in his 
favor, after the consideration of which, the council pro- 

^ N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 602; Belcher Papers, June 3, 1751. 
"^ N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 600. ^ Ibid., pp. 594, 607, 611. 

^ Ibid., p. 612. ^ Ibid., p. 617. 

'^ Ibid., p. 617. 



64 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [64 

nounced for him.' Boldly declaring the council's action 
an encroachment upon his authority and an indignity to 
the king, Belcher charged the council not to meddle in 
a concern in which he alone was accountable to the 
crown. ^ 

Meanwhile the case was tried in March, 1752, in the 
Supreme Court at Perth Amboy. Ashfield was acquitted 
by what the attorney general called a " Nice Distinction 
in Law." The identical words charged in the indictment 
were not supported by any witnesses for the king, ex- 
cept three, whom Judge Nevill, one of the Supreme 
Court Judges, writing to Belcher after the trial said 
were " all in the Heat of Blood, and warmly engag*^ in 
the Quarrel." 3 The court mentioned that to the jury, 
and after only a brief deliberation, the accused was ac- 
quitted. Notwithstanding the acquittal, the governor 
maintained that the testimony brought out at the trial 
proved Ashfield to be an undesirable citizen and unfit 
for the council.'* To support his contention he trans- 
mitted some papers regarding the trial to the lords of 
trade, among them the " Notes of Mr. Warrell, the 
King's Attorney-General, upon the Trial of Mr. Lewis 
Morris Ashfield," which spoke strongly of " his Irregular 
and Outrageous Behaviour," "His gross Vulgar un- 
seemly Language. "5 

^i.:i;^After his acquittal, the council again sought to hasten 
Ashfield's entrance into their midst, but the governor 
gave them scant satisfaction.^ Despite the fact that Gov- 
ernor Belcher had urged Lord Halifax to let Robert 

' A^. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 324. '^ Ibid., vol. vii, p. 634. 

^ Ibid., vol. viii, p. 40. * Ibid., vol. viii, p. iii. 

^ Ibid., p. 102. Ashfield was the grandson of Gov. Lewis Morris 
^ Ibid., p. loi. 



65] THE COUNCIL 6^ 

Hunter Morris ''cast no mist before your eyes" in palli- 
ation for his nephew's misconduct, the royal authorities 
disapproved of Belcher's attitude towards Ashfield. The 
acquitted gentleman's indiscretion was granted, but not 
deemed suflficient to cause him the loss of his seat in the 
council.' His immediate admission was ordered, which 
event occurred on May 23, 1753.^ 

During this controversy, Governor Belcher had pro- 
posed an additional reason against the admission of Ash- 
field to the council, namely, that it was contrary to his 
instructions, because it gave East Jersey a majority of 
councillors. A petition from some West Jersey inhabi- 
tants complained against this, and the governor con- 
tinued to notify the lords of trade. ^ Partridge also at 
Belcher's request notified the authorities of this disparity, 
claiming that nine lived in East Jersey, two in West 
Jersey, and one contrary to all precedent in New York, 
which resulted in an injurious inequality.'* James Alex- 
ander's figures indicated, on the other hand, that West 
Jersey could lay claim to seven councillors, and cited the 
cases of Lewis Morris, Thomas Byerly, and William Pro^ 
vost as precedents for councillors living in New York.s 
Robert Hunter Morris notified the lords of trade to that 
effect.^ In the case of the unequal representation the 
proprietors went too far in proving their contention, 
while in the citation of precedents of allowing a New 
Jersey councillor to reside in New^ York they were 
doubtless correct. Alexander maintained that " as the 
Law of England Esteems one Resident where he has a 
Freehold," and seven councillors owned property in 

^ N. J. A,, vol. viii, p. 124. ^ Ibid,, vol. xvi, p. 402. 

^ Ibid., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 13. ^ Ibid., pt. ii, p. 18. 

''Ibid., vol. vii, p. 644, '^ Ibid., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 13. 



66 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [66 

West Jersey, that division was not at any disadvantage. 
On the same principle, of course. East Jersey might be 
said to have had a decided advantage. As a matter of 
fact the whole affair was somewhat of a quibble, for the 
division was at this time little more than a name, and in 
the case of the council membership was kept up as a 
handy argument in case of need. Technically according 
to his instructions Governor Belcher, however, was right. 
There were two other council appointments during 
this administration, the earlier one the appointment of 
William Alexander, Earl of Stirling, to succeed his father 
James Alexander. This was the first council recommen- 
dation of Belcher's that was approved.' Opposition to 
this excellent appointment, however, there was none, 
because the young Alexander succeeded to the large 
proprietary holdings of his father.^ Going to England in 
1756, with General Shirley, whose aide-de-camp and pri- 
vate secretary he had been during the Fourth Intercolo- 
nial War, Alexander successfully strove for the earldom 
of Stirling, to which his father, though entitled, had 
never laid claim.3 It was in April, 1756, that Belcher 
recommended Alexander for the council, but it was not 
until 1 761 that he returned from England and took his 
seat.'* A residence at Baskingridge, New Jersey, at first 
used only in summers, later came to be his permanent 
abode. From the time that the Earl of Stirling entered 
the council, it was not the affairs of the proprietors but 
the resistance to parliamentary taxation that was of 
prime importance. His attitude of bold and active oppo- 
sition to the obnoxious measures of Parliament and his 

' A^. J. A., vol. viii, p. 214. 

" Duer, Life af Earl of Stirling, p. 10. 

^ Ibid., pp. 10-26. ^ N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 214. 



6;] THE COUNCIL 67 

able services to the patriot cause during the Revolution 
are matters of common knowledge, to which reference 
will necessarily, however, subsequently be made. The 
Earl of Stirling was suspended from the council in 1775 
by Governor Franklin because he accepted a commission 
as colonel in the continental army.' 

A vacancy caused by the death of John Rodman, was 
filled in 1757 by the appointment of Samuel Woodruff, a 
prominent Elizabethtown Presbyterian and close friend 
of Governor Belcher's.^ 

Belcher wrote to Partridge in November, 1751, "that 
while so many of the Council were such large Pro- 
prietors of Lands & are so partial in managing the 
Affairs of the Legislature I expect noth^ but Confusion 
in the Government." 3 The governor felt that the inter- 
ests of both parties should be more equally represented 
in the council. The proprietors believed that during 
this period, so critical for their interests, they should 
absolutely control the council to offset the popular ten- 
dency of the lower house. Governor Morris was if any- 
thing partial to the proprietors, and they failed, or 
refused, to appreciate the attempts of his successor to 
maintain an impartial attitude in the land disputes. The 
fact that all of Governor Belcher's recomm.endations to 
council except two were refused, is evidence sufficient of 
the superiority of proprietary influence at the court. It 
is doubtless true, certainly so in the cases of Ogden and 
Salter, that the proprietary nominees were men of ability 
superior to those recommended by Belcher. 

It was quite natural that during the brief rules of Ber- 
nard, Boone, and Hardy there should be no alignment 

' A'^. J. A., vol. X, p. 665. ''Ibid., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 236. 

'^Belcher Papers, Nov. 11, 1751. 



68 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [68 

of parties in connection with council appointments. The 
administrations were too brief and domestic affairs within 
the province came to be of less importance in the excite- 
ment of the Fourth Intercolonial War and with the 
approach of the Revolution. The resignations of Read- 
ing and Leonard because " of their Age and Infirmities " 
were accepted, and Charles Read and John Smith were 
appointed, upon the recommendation of Governor Ber- 
nard.' Read was the Burlington collector of customs 
and provincial secretary who had been recommended for 
the council by Belcher. He was in 1764 appointed as 
chief justice to succeed Morris, but held the position 
only a short time, perhaps because he did not satisfy. 
Smith, learning of the appointment, had written: " Frank- 
lin after Boone — after Morris, Read ! Patience, kind 
heavens!"^ John Smith, a liberal Quaker, before his 
removal to Burlington was a prosperous Philadelphia 
trader. He removed to Burlington and after the 
death of his beloved wife retired from business, and 
lived a quiet but useful life until his death in 1771. After 
Boone and Hardy had both recommended the suspension 
of Antill, he was superseded in the council in 1776 by 
John Stevens. 3 Stevens was an East Jersey proprietor, 
but lived in New York City from 1761 to 1771. For 
ten years previous to his removal to New York he had 
been a prominent member of the New Jersey assembly, 
and after resuming his residence in New Jersey was 
closely identified with the American cause in the Revo- 
lution, being president of the Convention which ratified 
the Constitution of 1787.* Johnston died during Gov- 

' N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 151. ^ Field, op. cit., p. 158. 

^A'^. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 239; vol. ix, pp. 317, 335. 
'•Ibid., vol. ix, p. 335, note. 



59 ] T^I^ COUNCIL 69 

ernor Hardy's administration, but the vacancy was not 
filled until after Franklin had taken charge. 

Early in Franklin's administration there were three 
vacancies to be filled, those caused by the death of 
Johnston, Salter and Hude. Governor Hardy had told 
the lords of trade that in West Jersey he could not find 
persons "fit for the Council," and Governor Franklin 
made the same complaint.' He said that West Jersey 
had only two councillors, but to fill these three vacancies 
he could find only two in that division suitable for the 
place, namely Samuel Smith and John Ladd, and would 
doubtless have to recommend an East Jerseyman for the 
third place.'' Smith and Ladd were subsequently ap- 
pointed, by an order in council dated August 31, 1763.^ 
The former was the same gentleman, who, when pre- 
viously recommended by Belcher, had been condemned 
as " a Wellwisher to the Rioters and his family Active in 
that Faction."'' Samuel Smith, the brother of John, 
appointed to the council in 1758, was the pioneer his- 
torian of New Jersey. He was a benevolent Quaker 
whose influence for good was potent in the province. 
Ladd, son of the gentleman of the same name, was a 
prominent surveyor, who had represented Gloucester 
County in the assembly. Franklin recommended him as 
"a Gent" of Fortune and unblemished Character." ^ The 
place of Salter was filled by an East Jersey proprietor, 
James Parker, of Perth Amboy, whose appointment was 
approved by the lords of trade in July, 1764.^ Although 
his military proclivities led him to serve as captain in the 
Canadian campaign of 1746. during the American Revo- 

'//. J. A., vol. ix, p. 364. ' Ibid., p. 386. 

^ Ibid., p. 394. *■ Ibid., p. 586. 

''Ibid., p. 387. ^ Ibid., p. 442. 



70 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [70 

lution he endeavored to remain neutral. His neutrality 
was the cause of his spending some of his time in the 
common jail. 
^ Upon the death of Robert Hunter Morris, the authori- 
ties in England appointed Frederick Smyth to the council, 
July 3, 1764.' A few months later he was appointed 
chief justice of the province, which position he held until 
the overthrow of royal authority. His attitude during 
the Stamp Act excitement won him deserved popularity, 
but later the disapproval of active opposition to the 
crown, which he strongly voiced in charges to two 
Grand Juries, brought upon him popular odium. ^ Dur- 
ing and after the Revolution he remained quietly at 
Philadelphia until his death in 1815. He was an able 
judge. Richard Stockton, one of Smyth's associates on 
the Supreme Court bench, became a member of the 
council in 1768 upon the decease of Woodruff, ^ Stock- 
ton was born at Princeton and was graduated in the first 
class from the College of New Jersey. He soon attained 
eminence as a lawyer. He was one of New Jersey's 
ablest public servants during the troublous period from 
1770 until 1778, when his health was broken down be- 
cause of the vile and shameless treatment to which he 
had been subjected while a prisoner in the hands of the 
British. 

During the rest of Franklin's administration there 
were four other changes in the council. The first of 
these was the appointment of Stephen Skinner to suc- 
ceed Ashfield, deceased. The governor had recom- 

' A'^. J. A., vol. ix, p. 442. 

* For his charge to the Essex Grand Jury in 1774, and their spirited 
reply, see Force, American Archives , Fourth Series, vol. i, p. 967. 

* N. J. A., vol. X, pp. 44, 59. 



yij THE COUNCIL 7 1 

mended William Bayard for the vacancy, but the lords 
of trade had appointed Skinner, because Bayard was not 
resident in the colony and the appointee had been long 
on their list.' Skinner presented his mandamus and was 
admitted to council, September 28, 1770.^ He had been 
the East Jersey treasurer, but his appointment came at a 
most unfortunate time. The treasury had been robbed, 
and the assembly, charging Skinner with negligence, had 
been engaged in a hot wrangle with the governor upon 
the matter, at last forcing Skinner's resignation as treas- 
urer. Following directly after the enforced resignation, 
this appointment to the council irritated the lower house. 
The former treasurer turned loyalist during the war, and 
first going to New York removed from there to England. 
In November, 1771, Daniel Coxe and John Lawrence 
were admitted to the council, succeeding Ladd and John 
Smith. 3 This Daniel Coxe was the fifth of the same 
name in that family so prominent in New Jersey history, 
and was, of course, associated with the proprietors. He 
was an ardent and active Tory during the war, and at its 
close went to England."* The last recommendation made 
to fill a vacancy in the New Jersey council was that of 
Francis Hopkinson, to take the seat of Charles Read, 
who moved to the West Indies. He was appointed 
April 21, 1774.' A native of Pennsylvania, his connec- 
tion with New Jersey history was slight. He was a gen- 
tleman of remarkable versatility, being at one time or 
another prose-writer, poet, statesman, and church organ- 
ist. As a New Jersey delegate to the Continental Con- 
gress in 1776, he signed the Declaration of Independ- 

' A'. J. A., vol. X, p. 139. ^ Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 185. 

' Ibid., p. 259. * Ibid., vol. x, p. 225. 

"Ibid., pp. 426, 455- 



72 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY j^y2 

ence. On October 3, 1775, Governor Franklin notified 
the Earl of Dartmouth that Samuel Smith had resigned 
his seat because of old age, but that he had been unable 
to induce anyone, whom he thought qualified, to fill the 
vacancy.' And he was spared further pains in the mat- 
ter, for the people of New Jersey soon called upon the 
faithful Franklin to relinquish his authority. 

' N.J. A., vol. X, p. 665. 



CHAPTER III 
The Assembly — Position and Personnel 

East and West Jersey had had an elective assembly 
almost from the earliest part of the proprietary period. 
Consequently, when the royal charter was granted, in 
1702, it was not only natural, but was also necessary, 
that there should be an assembly elected by the people. 
The assembly and council theoretically had coordinate 
powers in legislation, but in practice the lower house 
came to be the more influential/ The usual and neces- 
sary rights and powers of legislative bodies were given 
to the assembly, but all acts were to be reviewed by the 
crown and might be disallowed. Restrictions were 
made in the case of certain acts, however, providing that 
the governor should not assent to them unless added 
thereto was a clause suspending their operation until 
the royal will was known. 

A peculiar feature in New Jersey was that the sessions 
of the General Assembly were held alternately at Perth 
Amboy and Burlington. This was a relic of the early 
divisions of East and West Jersey, but it was a distinc- 
tion idly retained and a source of annoyance and expense 
to the province. The governor, with the advice of 
council, might appoint a different place in case of extra- 
ordinary necessity. Whenever this v^^as done, however, 
the assembly showed a very petulant and disagreeable 

' See Tanner, op. cit., ch. xx. 
73] 73 



74 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [74 

spirit. The governor's house-rent was allowed by the 
assembly only if the executive lived at Perth Amboy or 
Burlington, and the inconvenience of having two capi- 
tal cities was a subject of frequent complaint by the 
governors. 

The first assembly to meet Morris resolved that it was 
advantageous for the province to have but one place of 
residence, and urged the governor to live near the center 
of the province.' Morris refrained from answering the 
resolution, hoping the legislature would fix upon one 
place for the capital and erect suitable buildings there.' 
The governor reminded the lords of trade of the disad- 
vantages of the plan then existing, to all of which they 
agreed but refused to advise the king to order a change 
unless the council and assembly concurred in a humble 
petition for that purpose. ^ The meaningless excuse that 
the affairs of the province would not admit of a sudden 
alteration, was pleaded by the assembly as their reason 
for not agreeing to the governor's proposal.* 

Morris, despairing of the assembly's ever erecting 
suitable buildings for a capital in some centrally located 
town, leased the Kingsbury estate of Governor Thomas 
of Pennsylvania. It was less than a mile from Trenton. 
Toward the end of his administration the old and en- 
feebled governor was obliged to summon the legislature 
to Trenton. This was the case in December, 1744, and 
from August, 1745, to the end of his administration. 
Upon one occasion the assembly was called to Kings- 
bury to be dissolved in person by the governor. Sharp 
messages passed between the governor and assembly 
because of the latter's inquisitiveness regarding the 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 4, 1738. ^Ibid., Apr. 16, 1740. 

"^Morris Papers, p. 137. ^Assembly Journal, Oct. 3, 1741. 



75] THE ASSEMBLY 7^ 

authority by which they were called from the regular 
meeting-place. . That Morris's action might not be 
deemed a precedent, the assembly hoped "their removal 
to other Places will not be drawn into practice, oftener 
than the extraordinary Occasions of his Majesty's service 
require it." ' 

Governor Belcher also realized the inconveniences of 
alternate meeting-places for the legislature, but did not 
obtrude his view upon an unwilling assembly. When it 
was necessary for him to alter the regular alternation of 
meetings, it was done with care and conciliation. If too 
much opposition was expressed, he would usually pro- 
rogue the assembly until such time as he believed it pos- 
sible for him to meet the legislature at the regular place.' 
Believing that it would be beneficial to his health. Gov- 
ernor Belcher moved to Elizabethtown in 1751, to which 
place the legislature was later frequently called. In 
May, 1753, the assembly resolved that after the death or 
removal of Belcher it should be provided in the support 
bills that sums would be appropriated only on condition 
that the governor resided at Amboy or Burlington. ^ 
Opportunity was never given to test this resolution, for 
all subsequent governors lived at one or the other city. 
It actually pained Belcher that the assembly acted with 
such bad grace about meeting at Elizabethtown. 

When, after Belcher's death, the aged Reading unwill- 
ingly assumed the administration, his indisposition 
threatened the necessity of an adjournment to Trenton.'' 
The house, however, firmly refused to be adjourned to 
that city. They intended now to reassert their consti- 

^ Assembly Journal , Mar. 11, 1746. 

'^ Ibid., Dec. 22, 1752; Aug. 3, 1755. ^ Ibid., May 3, 1753- 

*■ Ibid., Oct. 10, 1757. 



76 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [76 

tutional right of sitting at Perth Amboy and Budington, 
though they had recently dispensed with this out of 
"tender Compassion to the advanced Age and great In- 
firmity" of their late governor.' Thoroughly aroused 
to duty, they intended to assert their right "lest a con- 
tinued Suspension of an unalienable Privilege, should 
hereafter prompt future Governors to repeat the Pre- 
cedent of calling their Assemblies to unconstitutional 
Places, to the great Prejudice of the Publick Good." 
What high-sounding language over a trifle ! One does 
not wonder that men capable of such sentiments under 
such circumstances and so sensitive regarding their im- 
alienable privileges and constitutional rights, refused 
upon principle to pay the stamp tax and a much smaller 
tax on tea. 

Bernard, Boone and Hardy did not stay long enough 
to test the assembly upon this subject, but Franklin did, 
to his sorrow rather than to his satisfaction. At every 
opportunity Franklin endeavored to impress the assem- 
bly with the desirability of having one capital. Failing 
in that, he believed that the intention to build a gov- 
ernor's residence implied in the support bill should be 
acted upon.^ When the royal assent was finally obtained 
to the bill for the emission of £100,000 in bills of credit, 
the assembly was urged by the home authorities to make 
proper provision for the erection of suitable buildings 
for the use of the governor, council and assembly. That 
was in 1775, and the assembly excused themselves and 
made noble promises for the next session. Governor 
Franklin actually believed that something would occur 
to move the stolid lower house from its lethargy of de- 
cades in this matter. But plans miscarried ! The royal 

^ Assembly Jourftal, Oct. 18, 1757. "^ Ibid., June 3, 1765. 



^^j FHE ASSEMBLY yy 

fabric tumbled down, and the assembly never met again 
under the authority of the royal charter. 

The first assembly which met Governor Morris had 
twenty-four members, two representatives from each of 
the ten counties and two members each for the cities of 
Perth Amboy and Burlington. Such had been the con- 
stitution of the assembly from 1727. Its members were 
chosen by freeholders, who had 100 acres of land in their 
own right, or real or personal property to the value of 
£50 sterling. The representatives elected were obliged 
to have 1000 acres of land or £500 sterling. The gov- 
ernor was forbidden to assent to any law which changed 
the number or duration of the assembly, the qualifica- 
tions of electors or elected, or altered in any way regu- 
lations previously established regarding the character or 
position of the lower house of the legislature. 

With the growth in population and the development 
of the colony, the erection of new counties for the con- 
venience of administration became necessary. This first 
became apparent in Hunterdon County, where the resi- 
dents of the upper part of the county were inconveni- 
enced by their living at a considerable distance from 
Trenton, where the courts were held. In March, 1739, 
an act was passed " erecting the upper Parts of the 
County of Hunterdon " into Morris County, named after 
the governor.' The new county was not to be given 
representation as such in the assembly until the royal 
pleasure was known, but the freeholders were to con- 
tinue to vote for representatives with Hunterdon County.'' 
The actual division of the province was so real that, had 
two added representatives been given to West Jersey, 

^ Allinson, Statutes of Neiv Jersey, p. 109. 
'^Morris Papers, p. 55. 



78 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [78 

Morris declared that East Jersey must necessarily also 
have two more. 

In 1748 the southern parts of Salem County were 
erected into a separate county because of the inconveni- 
ence to the inhabitants of living at a distance from Salem 
Town, the county seat.' It was called Cumberland, in 
honor of the then popular hero, the Duke of Cumber- 
land. This new division had all the liberties and priv- 
ileges of any other county, except the right to choose 
members to represent them in the General Assembly. 

By 1753 the inhabitants of the newly erected Morris 
County had found it inconvenient to attend the courts at 
Morristown, in consequence of which the new county of 
Sussex was established by act of June, 1753.'' The free- 
holders were to join with Hunterdon and Morris Coun- 
ties for choosing representatives, Morris and Sussex 
were to unite in raising taxes until it was otherwise 
ordered. 

It was but natural that these newly erected counties 
should desire separate representation in the provincial 
legislature. As if by a preconcerted plan, all three 
counties petitioned the assembly in the October session 
of 1760 for representation.^ The petitions, similar in 
tone, urged that the privileges of the other counties be 
granted them, and cited the hardships of being repre- 
sented by persons who were not fully cognizant of the 
circumstances and needs of their constituents. The peti- 
tions were at this session ordered to lie on the table. 

Morris County petitioned again in 1768, and at this 
session an act was passed. May 10, " for choosing Rep- 
resentatives in the Counties of Morris, Cumberland and 

'Allinson, op. cit., p. 153. ^Ibid., p. 194. 

^Assembly Jour7ial, Oct. and Nov., 1760. 



79] THE ASSEMBLY 79 

Sussex; and directing the Morris County Taxes to be 
paid into the Eastern Treasury." ' Each county was to 
have two representatives, having the same quahfications 
as those from the other counties, and of course elected 
by freeholders with the same qualifications as in the 
other counties. The provision regarding the Morris 
County taxes was made necessary because that county 
was not wholly in either division of the province. The 
most settled parts had grown up in the Eastern division. 
The act had a suspending clause, and was confirmed in 
December, 1770. In his speech on August 20, 1772, at 
the opening of the session, Governor Franklin felicitated 
the assembly upon the addition to their numbers.^ This 
was the last assembly elected, on account of which 
neither did the province nor the three counties reap 
great benefits from the added representation. The dis- 
advantage of keeping alive the distinction between East 
and West Jersey is apparent, because it was largely the 
jealousy between the two sections that had retarded rep- 
resentation in these three counties. 

The same assembly that passed the act granting repre- 
sentation to Morris, Cumberland and Sussex counties 
also passed an act "for the septennial Election of Rep- 
resentatives to serve in the General Assembly." ^ An 
unsuccessful attempt had been made by the assembly to 
have a simlar bill enacted in 1740. The council advised 
the governor to assent to the act, inasmuch as a sus- 
pending clause had been added. '^ The assembly urged 
the agent in London to solicit the royal assent, but the 
lords of trade saw no reason for haste, inasmuch as sep- 
tennial elections had been held without the measure.^ 

' Allinson, op. cit., p. 306. 

'^ N. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 298. 'Allinson, op. cit., p. 306. 

*iV. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 508. ^ Ibid., vol. x, p. 142. 



go THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [go 

The act never received the royal approval. In 1770 the 
Monmouth County representatives had received instruc- 
tions from their constituents for leave to introduce in the 
assembly a bill for annual elections.' This was too radi- 
cal for the assembly, and the permission was denied by 
a substantial majority. 

The governors frequently found it difficult to obtain a 
quorum, and in some cases no business could be con- 
ducted for days after a session had been called, because 
of the necessity of waiting for a quorum. Three was the 
usual number, who could meet and adjourn, but the at- 
tendance of sixteen or eighteen was usually required for 
the transaction of other business. In 1772 the rule was 
adopted that twenty constituted a quorum for ordinary 
business, and twenty-four when money was to be raised. 
On October 30, 1746, when sixteen was necessary for a 
quorum, only fifteen could be corraled. Thereupon ad- 
journment was taken to the home of Mr. Heard, at 
Woodbridge, where he was sick. Sixteen being then 
present, the resolution was passed that fifteen should 
be the quorum for the transaction of business. The 
house then adjourned to Perth Amboy and passed a 
necessary act for supplying the New Jersey troops in 
the expedition against Canada. On October 18, 1747, 
when the legislature stood adjourned to the seventeenth 
of the next month, important business having arisen, 
Belcher doubted the possibility of getting a quorum to- 
gether before the fixed date, a month ahead.'' 

The assembly, of course, made other rules as necessity 
required. From 1744 a committee on grievances was 
appointed at the beginning of each session, with power 

^ Assembly Journal, Mar. 22, 1770. 
'^ Belcher Papers . Oct. 18, 1747. 



Si] THE ASSEMBLY 8l 

to send for persons and records, and gather whatever 
information might be necessary for deciding the com- 
plaints and other matters referred to it.' It was unani- 
mously resolved, in October, 1769, that the sessions 
should be public and all who wished might attend.^ An 
earlier attempt to have the sessions public had been 
voted down. The assembly never tired of conforming 
to the custom of the British Parliament, and the resolu- 
tion of 1769 was passed as being conformable to the 
custom of the House of Commons. The number of 
private bills, such as naturalization acts, and acts relating 
to private meadows and marshes, had constantly in- 
creased with the growth of the province. It became 
absolutely necessary to restrict the petitions for private 
matters in some way. A resolution was passed in 1772, 
that petitions for private bills would only be received 
within the first ten days of any session. This was of 
course to avert the threatened danger of having the pub- 
lic business impeded because of the multitude of private 
bills. The legislature always took a Christmas recess. 
On December 15, 1747, Belcher wrote "it has been their 
Custom to adjourn for a frolick about this Season." ^ 

It will be profitable briefly to consider the personnel 
of the representative branch of the legislature before en- 
tering upon an account of the course of legislation dur- 
ing this period. Without doubt the New Jersey assem- 
blies of that day were more responsive to the will of the 
people than are those of our own time, for the physical 
conditions were such as to make a greater degree of 
responsibility possible ; the interests at stake were less 
diversified and less extensive. The qualifications for 

^ Assembly Journal, Oct. 5, 1744. "^ Ibid.. Oct. 12, 1769. 

'^Belcher Papers, Dec. 15, 1747. 



g2 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [82 

membership insured the election of men of means to the 
assembly. They were for the most part men little expe- 
rienced in public afifairs, for whom the date of holding 
the General Assembly was ordinarily arranged whenever 
possible so as not to conflict with their private concerns. 
Not a body of lawyers was the colonial assembly, al- 
though some of the ablest of that profession were from 
time to time members of the lower house. 

The members of the eleventh assembly elected in 1738, 
were Andrew Johnston, Lewis Johnston, James Hude, 
Edward Antill, John Eaton, Cornelius Vandervere, Joseph 
Bonnell, Josiah Ogden, George Van Este, Peter Dumont, 
Lawrence Van Buskirk and David Demarest from East 
Jersey; Richard Smith, Isaac Pearson, Mahlon Stacy, 
William Cook, Joseph Cooper, John Mickle, William 
Hancock, Joseph Reeves, Aaron Leaming, Henry Young, 
Benjamin Smith and John Embly for West Jersey. Those 
who had not been members of the previous assembly 
elected in 1730, were Lewis Johnston, Antill, Vandervere, 
Bonnell, Ogden, Demarest, Cook, Mickle, Hancock, 
Reeves, Benjamin Smith and Embly. A decided minority 
of the members was directly interested in the affairs of 
the proprietors. Regarding the most prominent mem- 
bers a few facts may be given. 

Joseph Bonnell, of Essex County, was chosen speaker. 
His name frequently appears upon committees of Eliza- 
bethtown claimants pressing their claims against the 
proprietors. The same year he was appointed second 
judge of the Supreme Court, but was again elected to 
the assembly in 1743.' The representatives from Perth 
Amboy were the two brothers, Andrew and Lewis 
Johnston, the former of whom has been mentioned as a 

' Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, p. 372. 



83] THE ASSEMBLY 83 

member of the council. Both Andrew and Lewis were 
for many years influential members of the council of 
East Jersey proprietors, having succeeded to the exten- 
sive interests of their father, Dr. John Johnstone." Lewis 
became a physician also, having received his education 
at Leyden, Holland, and served the community ably for 
many years until his death in 1773. Hude and Antill, 
from Middlesex County, the latter a proprietor, later 
became members of the council. Col. Josiah Ogden, 
now serving his last term in the assembly, was the father 
of the more famous David Ogden. 

Four of the representatives from West Jersey, Pearson, 
Cooper, Stacy and Mickle, were prominent members of 
the council of the West Jersey proprietors.^ Doubtless 
the most influentiel member from West Jersey was 
Richard Smith, one of the wealthy Smith family from 
Burlington, and father of Samuel Smith, the historian. 
He served the city of Burlington in the assembly con- 
tinuously from 1730 to 1748. James Alexander, an ex- 
cellent critic, writing to Agent Paris, paid a splendid, if 
unintended, tribute to the Burlington representative. 
Alexander mentioned Belcher's tendency to enter into 
the advice of Quakers in the assembly, especially relying 
upon Richard Smith, " the Man of the best Sense and 
Interest in that house ; and if he keeps his advice, I 
doubt not, he will make himself, and the Province both 
happy and Easy."^ Cape May County had an able rep- 
resentative in another Quaker, Aaron Leaming, who 
after having been bound out a shoemaker in Long 

'Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, 
p. 72. 

'^Minutes of the Cojincil of West Jersey Proprietors. 
^N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 121. 



84 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [84 

Island, decided to go to New Jersey, where, in 1734, he 
was admitted to practice law in the Cape May courts.' 
He was a member of the assembly from 1727 to 1744. 

Their sins of omission led Morris to dissolve the 
eleventh assembly after but one session was held, the 
twelfth assembly convening in 1740. Thomas Farmer 
and Thomas Leonard again appear in the assembly, both 
having served in earlier legislatures. Both of these gen- 
tlemen have been referred to as members of the council. 
Aaron Leaming, Jr., was elected to the assembly from 
Cape ]\Iay County, which at this session entrusted its 
assembly delegation to members of the Leaming family.' 
Indeed, from 1727 to 1772, there was always a Leaming 
from Cape May in the assembly, save for one year, 1744. 
At this time a young Quaker of but twenty-five, he was 
possessed of a good education and a spirit of industry. 
He was a large landholder in West Jersey. Ability and 
interest brought him into prominence for many years. 
Together wnth his colleague in the assembly, Jacob 
Spicer, he was most instrumental in compiling the 
Grants and Concessions of East and West Jersey under 
the lords proprietors. This arduous task occupied the 
attention of the Cape May members for many years. 
The record of Leaming's votes in the assembly shows 
that he habitually voted negatively, an attitude which 
was likewise somewhat characteristic of his friend Spicer. 

The thirteenth assembly was elected in- 1743, Andrew 
Johnston being chosen speaker. This was the first of 
the annual assemblies of the end of the Morris admin- 
istration. The East Jersey proprietary interests were 
strengthened by the return of Samuel Leonard to the 

'A^. J. A., vol. xix, p. 393, note. 

* Ibid., p. 393, note: Stevens. History- of Cape May County, p. 100. 



85] THE ASSEMBLY ^- 

assembly from Perth Amboy, and the election of Samuel 
Xevill. Among the other newly elected members were 
Robert Lawrence, Joseph Bonnell, George Vreeland, 
Derick Van Este and William Mott. Leonard was a 
prominent East Jersey proprietor, and ardent supporter 
of Governor Morris. His father had been a member of 
Cornbury's council. Lawrence, a member of the assem- 
bly from 1743 to 1 76 1, during part of which time he was 
speaker, sympathized with the people in contests with 
the royal executive or the proprietors of the land.' 
Although Vreeland was one of the representatives from 
Essex in this assembly, he later removed to Bergen 
County, representing that county in the nineteenth as- 
sembly. Changes in the personnel of the ^^'est Jersey 
representation were neither so numerous nor so im- 
portant as in East Jersey. 

The election of Samuel Xevill to represent Middlesex 
brought to the lower house one of the most talented 
men in the colony.* The death of his sister, Mrs. Peter 
Sonmans, who had inherited from her husband extensive 
proprietary interests in Xew Jersey, brought Xevill to 
America in 1736. Coming into possession of part of the 
Sonmans estate, he settled at Perth Amboy. A gentle- 
man of marked attainments and high character, his rise 
to eminence in the province was rapid. In the land dis- 
putes, he naturally took the proprietary viewpoint, but 
favored the adoption of conciliator}* measures against 
the rioters.^ Although Xevill supported the unpopular 
side in the land disputes, he championed the assembly in 

^y.J. A., vol. xix. p. 390. 

^Ibid., vol. vi, p. 2-2)'! ^ol- ^i- P- 4^9! Whitehead, op. cit. 
^ X. J. A., vol. vi, p. 2-2- See Nevill's speech in the assembly in 
answer to the rioters' petition, 1746. 



86 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [86 

the protracted contests with Governor Morris. Among 
the pubHc offices which he filled with ability were those 
of speaker of the assembly, mayor of Perth Amboy, and 
second judge of the Supreme Court. Before coming to 
America, Nevill had been editor of the London " Morn- 
ing Post;" while in this country he distinguished him- 
self as editor of "The New American Magazine," the 
second periodical published in America/ A compilation 
of the laws of New Jersey in two volumes was published 
by him. 

The refusal of the assembly to amend the militia act 
resulted in a dissolution and the election of the four- 
teenth assembly in 1744. Robert Hude and William 
Ouke were sent from Middlesex ; Samuel Nevill was re- 
turned by the city of Perth Amboy in the place of 
Andrew Johnson and was elected speaker. Both Hude 
and Ouke were staunch supporters of Morris in the 
house. The only other new member from the East 
Jersey counties was John Crane from Essex, who had 
been elected to succeed Joseph Bonnell. From Cape 
May came Henry Young, and from Hunterdon, Daniel 
Doughty, both consistent Morris supporters. The other 
Cape May representative was Jacob Spicer, previously 
mentioned as engaged with Aaron Leaming in the com- 
pilation and publication of Leaming and Spicer's "Grants 
and Concessions of New Jersey."^ Spicer, the son of a 
former assemblyman, was an ambitious and wealthy mer- 
chant. Elected to the assembly in 1746, he served his 
county in the lower house until his death in 1765. Sharp 
rivals in their home county, Leaming and Spicer continu- 
ally acted in concert when representing that county in 
the legislature. 

'Copies of this old magazine are in the Penn. Hist. Soc. Library. 

^- N. J. A., vol. xix, p. 3Q3; Stevens, op. cit., p. 106. 



87 J THE ASSEMBLY 87 

Experience proved that the former election had in 
nowise altered the complexion of the assembly better to 
suit the needs and desires of the governor. Conse- 
quently another election was held in 1745. Changes in 
the membership did not produce the altered conduct 
which the governor so earnestly desired. Pontius Stelle, 
John Heard and John Moores were among the new mem- 
bers from East Jersey favorably disposed to Morris. 
John Low was again sent from Essex after an absence 
of two years. The name of Hendrick Fisher first ap- 
pears in the list of representatives in this assembly. 
Somerset County had chosen him for the assembly in 
1740, but he was expelled from the house because his 
election had followed too closely upon his naturalization.' 
Taking his seat in 1745 he continued to represent his 
county in the assembly until the end of the royal period. 
He had come to America from the Palatinate early in 
the eighteenth century, and became actively identified 
with the Dutch Church near Bound Brook. By his con- 
duct in the assembly, Fisher showed the ability to think 
independently and act without considering the popu- 
larity of his conduct. During his service in the assembly 
he was appointed to membership upon several important 
committees of the house. Fisher was president of the 
May session of the first New Jersey Provincial Congress 
in 1775, and was also a member of the Provincial Com- 
mittee of Safety. Among the five newly elected mem- 
bers from West Jersey was Aaron Leaming, who had 
not been returned to the thirteenth and fourteenth 
assemblies. 

The contest between Morris and the assembly was waged 
as fiercely as ever in 1745, and the governor again sought to 

' Assembly Journal, April 10, 1740; Morris Papers, p. 85, note. 



88 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [88 

strengthen his position by an election. The sixteenth as- 
sembly met in February, 1746, but the personnel was altered 
in only two cases. Middlesex sent Philip Kearney instead 
of Moores, while Hunterdon returned John Embly to suc- 
ceed Daniel Doughty. Kearney was an eminent lawyer of 
that time. This was the last election under Morris. 

Dissatisfied with the attitude taken by the assembly in 
regard to the land riots and counterfeiters, Governor Belcher 
dissolved the sixteenth assembly. The newly-elected house, 
however, which met in February, 1749, proved to be no 
more tractable. Among the new members were John Weth- 
erill from Middlesex, Derick Dey from Bergen and James 
Hinchman from Gloucester. Of these Wetherill deserves 
notice. He continued a member of the assembly during the 
remainder of the colonial period, engaging actively in the 
public affairs of the colony. In 1774 Wetherill was ap- 
pointed upon the Standing Committee of Correspondence 
and Inquiry of the colony and was also' a member of the pro^ 
vincial congress during the next twO' years. 

The sessions of the seventeenth assembly found the coun- 
cil and assembly in violent contest over the act tO' settle the 
quotas of taxes upon the different counties. Convinced 
that an agreement was impossible. Governor Belcher 
ordered the election of a new legislature in February, 
1 75 1. John Johnston, the grandson of Dr. John John- 
stone, of Perth Amboy, was one of the new East Jersey 
delegates.^ He continued to serve in the legislature until 
he was commissioned colonel of the provincial troops sent 
to Canada in 1758. After his death at Ticonderoga in 
July of that year, Andrew Smyth, a Perth Amboy surro- 
gate, filled his seat in the house. John Stevens appeared as 
the other representative from Perth Amboy at this session 

^ N. J. A., vol. xix, p. 389. 



8c)] THE ASSEMBLY 89 

and continued an active and useful assemblyman until sum- 
moned to the upper house in 1763.^ Essex County was 
represented by John Low and Robert Ogden. The latter 
was chosen speaker in 1763, but was forced to resign his 
seat in the assembly, because of his refusal tO' sign the ad- 
dresses prepared by the New York Stamp Act Congress.^ 
Many of the East Jersey towns burned him in effigy. 

The West Jersey representatives sent to the assembly 
for the first time were Charles Read, John Deacon, Barzillai 
Newbold, William Mickle and Joseph Ellis. Read, to whom 
reference has been made as a councillor and justice of the 
Supreme Court, was elected speaker.^ He continued to 
represent the city of Burlington in the assembly until called 
to the council in 1758. Mickle and Ellis, like Read, were 
interested in West Jersey proprietary affairs. 

The former assembly having been dissolved, because of 
its refusal to provide for sending commissioners to the Al- 
bany Conference of 1754, the nineteenth assembly met in 
October of that year. Robert Lawrence was chosen speaker. 
Of the new members the most prominent were from West 
Jersey. Samuel Smith, the historian, began his career as an 
assemblyman at this time, continuing in the lower house 
until his appointment to the council in 1767. Gloucester 
sent John Ladd, who was then vice-president of the West 
Jersey council of proprietors, and was later elevated to the 
council. Samuel Clement and Ebenezer Miller, both con- 
sistent Quakers, were also prominent West Jersey prcn 
prietors and members of this house. 

A new election for representatives was not held until early 
in 1761, when, apparently in response to a request from the 
assemblymen. Governor Boone ordered the election of the 
twentieth assembly. East Jersey was represented by an 

'A^. J. A., vol. ix,p. 335. "^ Ibid., p. 525. ^Ibid.,\o\. x, p. 426. 



go THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [90 

unusually large number of influential citizens in this assem- 
bly, among them Stevens, Nevill, Wetherill, Richard Law- 
rence, Robert and John Ogden and Fisher. Richard Law- 
rence, a member of the prominent family of that name in 
Monmouth County, succeeded to the seat of Robert Law- 
rence. He was also a friend of the liberties and privileges 
of the people.^ John Ogden had served from Essex during 
part of the previous assembly, continuing in the house until 
1772. Upon the resignation of Robert Ogden, Stephen 
Crane was elected to the lower house, retaining his mem- 
bership in that body for the remainder of the colonial period. 
He was speaker in 1771 and 1772. One of the leaders of 
the Elizabethtown claimants against the proprietors, he was 
also an ardent patriot during the revolution. He was one 
of " the two Elizabeth Town Ambassadors " appointed by 
his fellow townsmen to carry a protest against the pro- 
prietors to the king.^ Among the other positions of trust 
which he filled were those of county judge, county high 
sheriff, and delegate to the Philadelphia Continental Con- 
gress. He was known as a man of unusual integrity and 
courage.' 

Numbered among the West Jersey representatives were 
Samuel Smith, John Lawrence, Joseph Borden, David 
Cooper, George Reading, Leaming and Spicer. The va- 
cancy caused by Samuel Smith's removal to the upper 
house was filled by Thomas Rodman, who held office in the 
council of West Jersey proprietors. Burlington city's other 
representative was the same Lawrence who was appointed 
to the council in 1771.* The other new West Jersey mem- 
bers were of no especial prominence. 

' N. J. A., vol. X, p. 459. 

' Matthias Hatfield was the other. N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 651. 

'Hatfield, History of Elizabeth. *N. J. A., vol. x, p. 302. 



^ij THE ASSEMBLY 91 

To the twenty-first assembly which met in October, 1769, 
Cortland Skinner and John L. Johnson were sent as the 
representatives of the city of Perth Amboy. The former 
gentleman had been elected to complete the unexpired term, 
in the twentieth assembly, of Andrew Smyth, deceased. 
Skinner's election as speaker, which position he held, ex- 
cept during Crane's incumbency, until the overthrow of 
royal rule, first occurred in November, 1765. An influential 
member of the council of East Jersey proprietors, attor- 
ney general of the province for many years until the Revo- 
lution and an eminent lawyer, Skinner was a man of au- 
thority in the colony. Johnson was a Perth Amboy mer- 
chant. East Jersey proprietor, the son of Andrew, who had 
been a member of the council, and treasurer of the eastern 
division of the province.^ Monmouth was represented by 
Robert Hartshorne and Edward Taylor, the former a de- 
scendant of Richard Hartshorne, one of the original twenty- 
four proprietors of East Jersey named in the Duke of York's 
grant of 1682.^ Somerset County sent Fisher and Berrien. 
Fisher mistakenly believed that this would be his last elec- 
tion to the assembly.^ The other gentleman was the same 
who was justice of the Supreme Court, and trustee of 
Princeton College.* 

From the city of Burlington came Abraham Hewlings, 
then president of the council of West Jersey proprietors, 
while old Gloucester sent John Hinchman, the then vice- 
president of that proprietary board.^ The other member 
from Gloucester County was Robert Friend Price, regarded 
as a friend of the people in the assembly.® Another Quaker 

•Whitehead, op. cit., p. 68. *A^. J. A., vol. xx, p. 150. 

^Ibid., vol. xxvi, p. 209. * Ibid., p. 208. 

''Minutes of the Council of N. J. Prop., 1767-1768. 
*A^. J. A., vol. XX, p. 154. 



92 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [92 

proprietor from West Jersey among the new members was 
Isaac Sharp, a Salem County judge and founder of the 
" Sharpsborough Iron Works." ^ 

The representatives from Hunterdon County, John Hart 
and Samuel Tucker, deserve particular mention. Without 
having even the educational advantages afforded in that 
day, by dint of his own ability. Hart rose to positions of 
prominence in public affairs.^ A champion of the privileges 
of the people he was a prominent member of two assem- 
blies, having been elected for the first time in 1761. This 
staunch Presbyterian rendered eminent services to the patriot 
cause during the Revolution. Committees of correspondence 
and safety, congresses, provincial and continental, included 
John Hart in their membership. He was one of the signers 
of the Declaration of Independence. Elected to the assem- 
bly under the state constitution in 1776, he was the first 
speaker of that body, retaining that position until his re- 
tirement from public life. 

A successful merchant of Trenton and a justice of the 
peace, Samuel Tucker was elected to the assembly in 1769 
and 1772.^ It was he, who, attempting to reform legal prac- 
tise in the colony, had the light of publicity turned upon his 
own misdeeds, the acceptance of excessive fees. However 
untimely and inconvenient, this exposure did not appear to 
materially lessen his influence. An active patriot, and a 
man of no mediocrity. Tucker was a valuable member of 
the New Jersey provincial congresses, acting as president 
in October, 1775, and June, 1776. Stigma attaching tO' his 
conduct as treasurer of New Jersey, when the state chest 
of valuables was captured by the British in December, 1776, 
forced him to- retire from public life. 

*A^. J. A., vol. XV, p. 97; vol. xxvii, p. 72. 

"^ Ibid., vol. X, p. 369. ^ Ibid., vol. x, p. 270. 



93 J THE ASSEMBLY 93 

Refusing barrack supplies for the royal troops, the as- 
sembly was dissolved in December, 1771. The twenty-sec- 
ond and last assembly to be elected under royal authority 
met August 19, 1772. There appeared at this session the 
first representatives to^ be elected from Morris, Cumberland 
and Sussex Counties. One of the Morris County represen- 
tatives was William Winds, who' was commissioned in 1776 
to arrest Governor Franklin, in accordance with an order 
of the Continental Congress. During the Revolution he 
proved himself to be a zealous and efficient officer.^ Jacob 
Ford, of Morristown, was the other representative from 
Morris County. He was one of the pioneer iron merchants 
of New Jersey and a county judge from the organization of 
Morris County in 1740 almost until his decease.^ Other 
new members from the eastern division were John Coombs, 
John Moores and Henry Garriste. 

Cumberland County elected John Shepherd and The- 
ophilus Elmer; Sussex County, Thomas Van Home and 
Nathaniel Pettit. One of the most distinguished members 
of this legislature was the Quaker James Kinsey, of Bur- 
lington, son of John Kinsey a former speaker of the New 
Jersey assembly.^ In leading the opposition to Governor 
Franklin upon the question of treasurer Skinner's respon- 
sibility in the treasury robbery, later to be mentioned, the 
abilities of the younger Kinsey were displayed to great ad- 
vantage. Elected as a delegate to the Continental Congress 
of September, 1774, he later resigned the appointment. 
From 1789 to 1803 he was chief justice of the Supreme 
Court of New Jersey. Kinsey's colleague from the city of 
Burlington was Thomas P. Hewlings. 

^ N. J. A. (Second Series), vol. i, p. 321. 

* Ibid., vol. xii, p. 665. 

'Elmer, Reminiscences of Neiv Jersey, p. 275 et seq. 



94 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [94 

Even this necessarily cursory sketch of the activities of 
the most prominent assemblymen convinces the student 
that men of capacity and ability were included among the 
ranks of the colonial lower house. On the other hand, it 
is indisputable that many of the would-be legislators were 
ill-accomplished, uneducated farmers, who perhaps felt 
better at ease guiding the plow through' the furrow than 
legislating for their country's good. Morris, with no in- 
tention to compliment, alluded to the assemblymen as 
" ploughmen representatives," ^ but he was not alone among 
royal governors in experiencing a setback at their hands. 
In each assembly, personal leaders appeared, men of prestige 
and zeal, to whom particular credit was due for bringing 
things to pass. 

It has been observed that the re-election of members to 
successive assemblies was of frequent, if not usual, occur- 
rence. This does not necessarily indicate that the elec- 
tions were placid formalities. The polls were open for suc- 
cessive days, until a choice was made. The Somerset 
County election of 1768 is described as having been "carried 
on with the greatest coolness and good order; nO' reflecting 
or abusive words were heard during the whole election." ^ 
By inference, it might be supposed that reflecting and abusive 
words were not foreign to such occasions. There is a re- 
port, the authenticity of which is not guaranteed however, 
of an unusually exciting election in Hunterdon for repre- 
sentatives in 1772.^ The race for public honor was between 
Tucker and Hart, the former gaining the victory on the 
third day after a generous body of Episcopalians had been 
induced to cast their votes for Tucker in opposition to the 

^Morris Papers, p, 276. 
*iV. J. A., vol. xxvi, p. 209. 
'Sedgwick, Life of Livingston, p. 143. 



95] THE ASSEMBLY 93 

Presbyterian candidate. The election of members to the 
eighteenth assembly, after the dissolution of the previous 
house due to the disagreement upon the quotas act, caused 
animated discussion. The New York and Philadelphia 
weeklies contained earnest articles upon the approaching 
election.^ In August, 1754, " the greatest Struggles in elect- 
ing Representatives in some of the Counties, that ever were 
known," were reported by the " New York Gazette." * 
Middlesex and Hunterdon Counties required four days to 
conclude the election; while in Somerset there were six 
candidates and it was necessary for the " Gazette " to go to 
press before the returns were received. 

An agent representing the province at the court in Eng- 
land was a well-established institution in New Jersey in 
1738. Communication between the two continents was so 
irregular and uncertain, that the necessity of maintaining an 
active agent in London had become recognized. Whereas 
the desire of the royal authorities was that such an officer 
should represent the entire provincial government, that offi- 
cial became a representative of the assembly alone. Com- 
plaints against this assumption of power were no less 
frequent than vehement, but the fact of the agent's respon- 
sibility to the lower house continued and the representa- 
tives referred in documents to " their agent at Great 
Britain." * 

The method by which the agent was made responsible 
to the assembly was through that body's control of the 
public purse. In the salary appropriation the recipient was 
expressly designated and hence virtually appointed, for 
the right of the council to alter or amend a money bill was 
successfully opposed. One of the objections urged by the 

^N. J. A., vol. xix, pp. 34, 48, 53. 'Ibid., p. 382. 

* Assembly Journal, Feb. 22, 1750. 



96 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [96 

council in 1749 against the government support act was, 
that to allow the assembly the sole nomination of an agent 
paid by public money, required an application tO' the king 
by the council to be made at a private charge.^ Against 
such an unreasonable arrangement the upper house com- 
plained, but in vain. When reproached by the governor for 
wasting time in disputes, he is informed by the assembly 
that the councillors were at fault for they " tried tO' encroach 
on the constitution by altering a money bill, so that the 
House would be deprived of the appointment of their 
Agent." ' 

In 1769 the lords of trade indirectly owned that the 
colonial agent was an officer of the assembly only. The 
clause in the support act appointing the agent " for the 
Province at the Court of Great Britain " was harshly criti- 
cized as " a ridiculous Affectation in the Assembly to cloath 
an Ofiicer, who is merely an Attorney to transact their Af- 
fairs, independent of the general Interests of the Colony, 
with a character that belongs only to the Minister o-f a 
Foreign Prince." ^ The lords accepted agents responsible 
only to the assembly, but they did this unwillingly. June 
21, lyyi, Governor Franklin was ordered by the lords of 
trade to refuse his assent in future to any support bill which 
carried with it the implication of the assembly's right solely 
to appoint the colonial agent.* The lords would now permit 
no colonial agent to appear before them who' was not ap- 
pointed by a concurrent act of the whole legislature. The 
governor doubted that the assembly would recede from 
their claim, which he believed had " been long acquiesced 
with in this Province as well as in most other of His 

'A'', J. A., vol. xvi, p. 196. 

^ Assembly Journal, Feb. 22, 1750. 

'//. J. A., vol. ix, p. 445. ^Ibid.. vol. x, p. 301. 



gyl THE ASSEMBLY 97 

Majesty's Colonies in North America," but he sought to 
convert the lower house to the official viewpoint.^ Much 
persuasion and many private interviews with the represen- 
latives rewarded Franklin's efforts, for in the support act 
of 1 77 1, the assembly consented to the omission of those 
words in the bill which seemed to establish their claim to 
the complete control of the provincial agent. 

The agreement was more formal than essential and ef- 
fected no change in the agency. " That Doctor Benjamin 
Franklin be and he is hereby appointed Agent for transact- 
ing the affairs of this Colony in Great Britain" was a re- 
solve of the council on December 11, 1771.^ It merely 
ratified the appointment of the man, with whom a com- 
mittee of the assembly had been corresponding as colonial 
agent for two years. ^ Strict compliance with the regulation 
of the lords of trade w^as made, when the governor con- 
curred with the council and assembly resolves appointing 
his father agent.' When the next agent was appointed, in 
November, 1775, however, there is no record that a similar 
formal concurrence of the governor and council with the 
assembly was given. 

Benjamin Franklin was strongly opposed to the appoint- 
ment of agents by concurrent action of the whole legis- 
lature.^ Evidently believing that the ministerial scheme 
required the passage of a separate legislative act, he thought 
this device granted the royal officials effectual power to con- 
trol the agents by a repeal of the appointing act. That the 
new resolution of the Board of Trade would operate to 
render the agents subservient to the Secretary of State was 
the elder Franklin's contention. He declared the deter- 

' A^. J. A., vol. X, p. 315. 

^ Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 235. ^ Ibid., vol. x, p. 135. 

* Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 271. ^ Ibid., vol. x, p. 330. 



gS THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [98 

mination to decline serving as a provincial agent under 
any such uncertain appointment. Fortunately for the colony 
Benjamin Franklin did not adopt this extreme course, but 
retained the New Jersey agency until 1775. 

Not only was the agent in effect appointed by the assem- 
bly, but he advised and kept in touch with the affairs of the 
province by a committee of correspondence of that house. 
This committee, ordinarily numbering four or five, of whom 
the speaker was one, was authorized to correspond with the 
agent, and transmit to him the assembly minutes/ Thus 
the representative at the court was constantly given official 
notification of the conduct of affairs in the colony and es- 
pecially from the assembly viewpoint. In 1738 the lower 
house ordered that two books should be provided, one for 
East Jersey and one for West Jersey, wherein all letters 
sent to and received from the London agent in relation to 
the affairs of the province should be entered.^ The cus- 
todian of these important volumes was not announced, 
although they might naturally be supposed to have been 
intrusted to the committee of correspondence. 

The first agent appointed for the province was Peter 
La Heupe, who having held the post for about four years 
was succeeded in 1727 by Richard Partridge, a Quaker of 
not exceptional ability.^ He was Belcher's brother-in-law 
and active agent during that governor's administration in 
New Jersey. The East Jersey proprietors were not well 
disposed toward Partridge, suspecting him of encouraging' 
the people in the land troubles, and his management of funds 
entrusted to him evoked bitter criticism. Belcher was con- 

^ For the business of the assembly in connection with the appoint- 
ment of an agent, see Assembly Journal, Nov, 17, 1742. 
"^ Assembly Journal, Mar, 21, 1738. 
'Tanner, op. cit., p. 375 et seq. 



99] THE ASSEMBLY 99 

stantly admonishing him to have no connections with the 
anti-proprietary rioters, lest he lose influence with the min- 
istry/ And in 1752 powerful enemies in England tem- 
porarily prevented his having access to the king's ministers 
or public officers.^ October 22, 1751, the council declared 
that some other person should be appointed, and by legis- 
lative act,^ but Partridge retained the New Jersey agency 
until the end of 1760. 

On November 19, 1760, the assembly resolved that Joseph 
Sherwood, a London attorney-at-law, should be appointed 
provincial agent, and there was designated a committee to 
correspond with him.* He may have received the position 
through the good offices of Samuel Smith, the treasurer,' 
In 1766 the influence of Lord Stirling secured the appoint- 
ment of Henry Wilmot, and Sherwood was ordered to 
transmit his accounts to the assembly.*' These accounts 
were not laid before that house until 1770, when the former 
agent's request for an allowance of £43 was unanimously 
rejected.^ No charge of misconduct had been made against 
Sherwood, who himself expressed the desire " to know how 
the Revolution came about." * 

Wilmot was an eminent solicitor and secretary to the 
Lord Chancellor. He was apparently careful of the inter- 
ests of the colony, but was continued in the office for but 
three years, being superseded by the appointment of Ben- 
jamin Franklin in 1769.° The committee of correspondence 

^Belcher Papers, Dec. 6, 1751. "^Ibid., Aug. 28, 1752. 

'A^. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 342. * Assembly Journal, Nov. 19, 1760. 
^ Shenvood Letters , Mar. 14, 1761; N. J. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, vol. 
V, p. 133- 

^Assembly Journal, June 18, 1766. ''Ibid., Oct. 26, 1770. 

^ Shenvood Letters, Aug. 21, 1766, op. cit. 
^Assembly Journal, Nov. 8, 1769. 



lOO THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [loo 

did not deem it necessary to press upon the newly-appointed 
agent the matter of diHgence, because he had been found 
inchned to the American service.^ The last provincial 
agent, appointed in November, 1775, was Dennis De Berdt, 
the father-in-law of Deputy Secretary Reed. Governor 
Franklin believed his appointment resulted chiefly from his 
diligence in obtaining for the New Jersey assembly the con- 
tents of a letter sent by the governor to the Earl of Dart- 
mouth.^ 

^ N. J. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, vol. x, p. 168. 
•W. y. ^., vol. X, p. 681. 



CHAPTER IV 
Legislative History — The Morris Administration 

Many of the constitutional conflicts, which a study of 
the history of legislation in the province reveals, were not 
peculiar to New Jersey alone. The constant struggles over 
the support of government and the paper money issue were 
common to the other English colonies in America, and the 
case of one is typical of the others. Thrown upon their 
own resources, and left to solve problems with an almost 
free hand, the colonists had naturally profited by the negli- 
gence of the crown officials, and the great distance from the 
mother country. The royal executives became objects of 
suspicion, representatives of an external authority, against 
whose encroachments, fancied or otherwise, they must con- 
stantly be on their guard. As to what constituted an en- 
croachment, a violation of a cherished liberty of the people, 
there was much room for a difference of opinion, because 
the relation between the realm and the dominions had never 
been exactly defined.^ The unsympathetic relations that 
usually existed between the branches of government were 
manifestly not conducive to harmony. The assembly evi- 
dently had an insatiable love of power, and encroached upon 
the other departments as much as possible. Such invasions 
of the prerogative of the governor, council, or courts, was 
protested against, but usually acquiesced in lest the necessi- 

' See Osgood. The Anterica?i Colonies in the 17th Century, vol. iii, 
chap. i. 

lOll ICI 



I02 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [102 

ties of the public service should be hampered. Notwith- 
standing frequent and earnest protests on the part of the 
royal officials, both in England and America, the assem- 
blies practically forced the governor and council to comply 
with what they pleased to direct. To' gain this point, with- 
holding the funds for the support of the civil establishment 
was a big stick, of which the assembly made frequent use. 
This was a cudgel of the assembly alone, for they main- 
tained, and made good their claim, that the council could 
neither amend nor alter money bills. As the council in most 
of the colonies was composed of royal appointees, selected 
upon the recommendation of the governor, and consequently 
dependent upon him, the assembly and council were in fre- 
quent conflict. The particular reasons for the contests be- 
tween the two houses in New Jersey will presently be noted. 
It was unusual, but not unknown, for the governor and 
council to be at odds. From what has been said, some of 
the fundamental defects of the system of government that 
prevailed in the colonies are evident, and it is apparent that 
they were magnified by the negligence of the home author- 
ities, the remoteness of the dominions from the realm, and 
the naturally acquired love of power in the assemblies. 

There were particular conditions in the different colonies 
that encouraged a more or less bitter spirit of rivalry and 
conflict in the legislative sessions. Chief among these in 
New Jersey may be mentioned the land system, Quakerism, 
and the place for the meeting of the legislature. That the 
first of these should have been an added cause of controversy 
in this province was due to the fact that after 1702 titles to 
land were vested in private landowners and not in the gov- 
erning power of the province, and that the proprietary title 
to large tracts of land was actively disputed. The majority 
of the people viewed the proprietors as a wealthy, landed 
aristocracy wielding an undue and selfish influence in the 



1 03] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IO3 

affairs of the province. Their gain was improperly re- 
garded as the people's loss. As the strength of the pro- 
prietors was in the council and that of the people in the as- 
sembly, an almost constant strife between the two bodies 
was not unnatural. It was this influence more than any 
other that lent zest to the relations between the council and 
assembly of New Jersey, and made it unusually difficult for 
the two houses to " keep sweet between themselves," as 
Belcher put it. Under the circumstances it is apparent that 
the attitude of the governor toward the proprietors was im- 
portant. This was also true of what ma}'- be called Quaker- 
ism. Members of that sect constituted a large number of 
the inhabitants of the province, the great majority in West 
Jersey. It was in their opposition to war and military ser- 
vice that their attitude was a matter of public importance. 
Orthodox Friends believed in the unlawfulness of war, and 
whenever it became necessary to raise troops or regulate the 
militia, their presence in official positions was regarded by 
many as a detriment to the public service. Frequent com- 
plaints were made to the royal officials, especially by Gov- 
ernor Morris, that the obstinacy of the Quakers prevented 
the enactment of necessary laws for establishing the militia 
upon a proper footing for the defense of the province. The 
Quaker element was much stronger in the assembly than in 
the council. The third condition mentioned as productive 
of strife was the determination of the place for holding the 
legislative sessions. This has been considered in the pre- 
ceding chapter and the mere mention of it is necessary here. 
Holding alternate sessions of the legislature at Burlington 
and Perth Amboy was expensive and inconvenient, but the 
assembly could not be persuaded to alter the system. In 
itself the place of meeting was not of serious consequence, 
but it was frequently made an issue for opposing the gov- 
ernor, when he attempted to deviate from the regular alter- 
nation. 



104 '^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [104. 

The most violent constitutional conflicts during this 
period of New Jersey's colonial history were during the 
Morris administration. Both governor and council arrayed 
themselves against the most popular measures that the lower 
house proposed, such as the bills for the emission of paper 
money, for obliging sheriffs to give security, and for pre- 
venting actions under £15 from being tried in the Supreme 
Court. On the other hand, the assembly steadfastly re- 
fused to support the government or regulate the militia 
until their measures were granted. The arbitrary attitude 
of the governor embittered these conflicts and legislative 
deadlocks were of frequent occurrence. The alignment of 
parties during Morris's regime was clearly proprietary and 
anti-proprietary, but this division was even more pro- 
nounced during Belcher's term. Then the contest between 
the proprietors and the associates became most acute, and 
the council, dominated by proprietary interests, was obliged 
to oppose the popular house without the active aid of the 
governor. Consequently during this administration the two 
houses were engaged in single-handed contests with one 
another, and the executive was unsuccessfully attempting to 
restore harmony. Governor Belcher was in an unusually 
unfortunate plight. The assembly refused to support the 
government because of the conflicts with the council; and 
the upper house opposed the governor, because he refused 
to take sides actively with them. Neutral ground was hard 
to maintain and the governor suffered in the attempt. 
Before William Franklin became governor of the province 
the land troubles had so far subsided that party lines became 
less marked. The chief concerns of his administration 
were not such as to lead to disputes between the council 
and assembly. Legislation regarding an important bound- 
ary controversy with New York was passed without diffi- 
culty, although it was chiefly a proprietary affair. Finan- 



I05] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY I05 

cial and military measures were the most important while 
Franklin was governor. The assembly wished to exchange 
the former for the latter, namely, to supply barracks for 
royal troops and aid the king's military operations in return 
for the permission to emit a large amount of paper money. 
Naturally as the opposition to the obnoxious acts of the 
English Parliament increased, the loyalty of the people to 
their royal governor, who continued a thorough government 
man, decreased. 

There had been a long period of legislative apathy previous 
to the first session of the eleventh assembly, which was 
the first assembly to meet Governor Morris. Since 1730 
there had been but one session of the legislature, the second 
session of the tenth assembly, which met under Governor 
Cosby, in April, 1733. Over five years elapsed between 
the last adjournment of that assembly and the first legis- 
lative session, with Morris as governor, in October, 1738. 
During this long interval, and especially after Cosby's death 
in 1736, the eft'orts of influential Jerseymen were chiefly 
occupied in the important but difficult task of securing a 
separate governor for their province. Success havingi 
crowned their efforts, the first meeting of the assembly 
under the new^ conditions was an event of interest and im- 
portance to the province. 

The elections of 1738 had returned to the lower house 
less than half of the membership of the former assembly. 
Although the house met at Perth Amboy on October 27th, 
and Joseph Bonnell, of Essex, was elected speaker, no 
further business was transacted. Adjournment was taken 
to November 13th, two days after which the governor ad- 
dressed the legislature.^ 

It was natural that the governor should first allude t> 

' Assembly Journal, Nov. 15. 1738. 



Io6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [io6 

the king's condescension in having granted the prayer of 
the colony for a separate governor. This fact led Morris 
to animadvert upon the propriety of a necessarily grateful 
legislature making an ample and suitable provision for the 
support of the government. The council was properly con- 
gratulated upon meeting for the first time as a distinct 
branch of the government, separate from governor and as- 
sembly in their legislative capacity. In addition the legisla- 
ture was exhorted to pass good and necessary laws, to main- 
tain calmness in debate, and to make it dangerous for men 
to be otherwise than just and honest — the last, it would seem, 
a rather difficult task. A change from the old method of 
having alternate sittings of the legislature was urged. 

A great degree of calmness proved to be distinctive neither 
of this nor of any other session of the legislature during 
Morris's administration. It is true, that the assembly's ad- 
dress, to which the governor listened on December i6th, 
was harmoniously worded, and the effusive applause which 
it showered upon him might well have misled a gentleman 
of far less conceit.^ And Morris might have relied too im- 
plicitly upon the assertions of the lower house, had he not 
read a resolution, which revealed the representatives as not 
generous toward him, at least when the public purse was 
concerned. 

By a vote of ten to thirteen, the assembly resolved not 
to allow Morris a particular sum for the part he had taken 
in securing a distinct governor. The question was worded 
as if tacitly to imply that the governor had applied for a 
financial reward for his services. The assembly, generously 
inclined, promised duly to consider any account of such ex- 
penditures which the governor might lay before them. Re- 
senting this attitude, Morris declared he had never demanded 

' Assembly Journal, Dec. i6, 1738. 



I07] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IO7 

any money for his services, but hoped that he dealt with 
people inclined to gratitude/ He reminded this assembly 
of a " deal " between Cosby and a former house, according 
to which his predecessor was to aid New Jersey in obtain- 
ing a separate governor, in return for which aid, Cosby was 
to continue to receive his salary from New Jersey, as long 
as he should continue as governor of New York. The mes- 
sage which the governor sent to the assembly was well cal- 
culated to irritate that body. 

This session was marked also by a dispute between the 
two houses of the legislature regarding the support bill. 
After this measure had been passed by the assembly, the 
council asked for a conference upon the bill. Provided 
only the form and not the substance of the act was to be 
considered, was the assembly willing to confer.^ As the 
council declared the right to request a conference upon any 
subject, whenever public interest required such a proceed- 
ing, the assembly asserted the equal right of each house to 
refuse a conference at any time. Only if no alteration in 
the substance of the support bill was desired, would the 
house agree to a conference.^ To the reiterated terms of 
the assembly, the council returned a detailed answer, charg- 
ing the assembl}^ with the attempt to evade the issue, and 
maintaining that to give consent to a conference would im- 
pair no privilege of which the representative body could 
boast.* The general principle at issue was in the council's 
contention that each house had an equal privilege of pro- 
posing or amending any bill. 

In this particular case the council desired to alter the 
measure by which part of the public money for the support 

^ Assembly Journal, "izn. 31. 1739. 

* A^. J. A., vol. XV, p. 50. ^ Ibid., pp. 54, 57. 

'■IHd., p. 68. 



I08 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [io8 

of government was to be applied/ According to the gov- 
ernor, the assembly was particularly in error in this case, 
inasmuch as this support act was not to raise money, but 
merely to direct the application of funds already in the treas- 
ury. Even granting, for the sake of argument, said Morris, 
that the assembly might refuse a conference upon a biK 
raising money, " they had not the least collour for doing it ** 
in the present case.^ Rather than hazard the support of gov- 
ernment, the council, as usual, passed the bill and contented 
themselves with a declaration of principle. 

Morris regarded the conduct of the assembly as exhibit- 
ing an unusually dangerous tendency, and on March 15, 
1739, dissolved the General Assembly.^ The governor de- 
plored ■ the fact that instead of being a profitable session, 
this had been the longest and most expensive legislative 
sitting in the history of the colony. His supporters were 
thanked for what had been accomplished, but the other 
members were declared guilty of unbecoming conduct. 
Sceptical of the advantages of a second session of the 
eleventh assembly, Morris dissolved it in the hope that the 
newly-elected body would be more disposed to harmony, 
that is, more in sympathy with the governor.* 

The session was not entirely devoid of results, but the 
great majority of the important bills considered were not 
passed at this time. Of the nine acts passed at this session, 
four were of particular importance.^ These were acts to 
support the government, to settle the militia, to restrain 
extravagant and excessive interest, and to erect Morris 
County. Some of the bills that failed to pass both houses 
or did not receive the governor's assent included measures 

^A/orris Papers, p. 41. ^Ibid., p. 42. 

'A^. J. A., vol. XV, p. 79. ^Morris Papers, p. 51. 

* Allinson, op. cit., p. 99. 



109] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 109 

for the more frequent meeting and electing of represen- 
tatives, for the regulation and preservation of the public 
roads, for shortening law suits and regulating the practise 
of the law, for obliging sheriffs to give security and take 
oaths, and for laying a duty on staves and shingles/ 

The people of New Jersey had had their first legislative 
session under a separate governor. That the new regime 
had made for harmony did not appear. This, too, in spite 
of the fact that the new chief executive had previously in 
New Jersey met with the acclaim of a popular hero. The 
change had been effected in the case of Morris rather than 
the people. Looking to a larger field of history, the conduct 
of the people in this case is analogous to the revulsion of 
feeling which William Pitt experienced a generation later, 
when he was raised to the peerage and became the Earl of 
Chatham. Instead of Lewis Morris, champion of the peo- 
ple's rights, the populace beheld him in a position which 
they had come to regard with suspicion. With another type 
of man, this feeling could have been overcome, but in the 
case of Morris, whose extensive interests in the colony not 
unnaturally aroused the suspicion of possible partial judg- 
ments and whose temperament did not encourage concilia- 
tion, the distrust increased and the opposition became more 
marked. 

The first session of the twelfth assembly met at Burling- 
ton on April 10, 1740, and elected Andrew Johnson speaker. 
Bonnell, the former speaker, had not been returned to this 
assembly, a fate which had befallen seven other members. 
Only one of the governor's consistent supporters in the East 
Jersey delegation was returned. Upon the whole, Morris 
had evidently not strengthened his position by the appeal 
to the people. 

^Morris Papers, p. 39, note. 



no THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [no 

It was April i6th before the governor addressed the as- 
sembly.^ In a characteristic message, Morris advised the 
representatives at great length to avoid the mistakes of the 
former house, and seek to exercise only those pov^ers that 
were properly theirs. The advisability of laying import 
duties was suggested. The assembly was especially urged 
to co-operate in the expedition under Colonel Spotswood, 
which was to join forces sent from England against the 
Spanish colonies in the West Indies. 

The reply of the assembly on April 25th was a cleverly- 
worded answer to all the subjects touched upon by the gov- 
ernor.^ In some cases words of the governor's address 
were paraphrased tO' suit the purpose of the assembly. If 
the governor's professed hopes for a successful meeting were 
founded upon the assembly's address, events proved that 
they were built upon sand. 

The governor's recommendation that aid be furnished 
to the West Indian expedition had passed unheeded by the 
assembly. On June 26, 1740, Morris sent a second message 
to the lower house upon this subject.^ Ostensibly to con- 
sult their constituents upon this important business, the 
house asked for a fortnight's adjournment, but fearing the 
adjournment would be disastrous to his plans, the governor 
refused it.* Only after an act making current two thou- 
sand pounds in bills of credit for victualling and transport- 
ing troops was passed, was an adjournment permitted. 

After a recess from the fifth to the twenty-first of July, 
Morris urged material changes in the bill, that had been 
passed, for supplying the troops. The assembly was ob- 
durate, however, and not disposed tO' accede to the chief 

^ Assembly Journal, April 16, 1740. ^Ibid., April 25, 1740. 

'A^. J. A., vol. XV, p. 126. 
^Morris Papers, p. 98. 



Ill] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY HI 

executive's desires. The legislature was kept in session until 
the end of the month, when the house was prorogued with- 
out having altered the objectionable measure. 

The second session of the twelfth assembly, which met 
at Perth Amboy, on October 2, 1741, was not marred by con- 
flicts. The address to the council and assembly at the open- 
ing of the session, urged the further support of government, 
and renewed the periodical recommendation for the erec- 
tion of a house suitable for the governor, and convenient 
meeting places for the legislative sittings.^ The plea for 
one seat of government was made on the ground of economy. 
An interesting proposal made by Morris at this time was 
that the provincial laws should be revised by duly qualified 
and authorized persons to the end that a correct edition 
should be made of them. Proper measures of defence 
against Spain were declared necessary. 

This session was brief, business-like and noticeably free 
from disagreeable wrangles between the branches of the 
government, the credit for which was modestly assumed by 
the governor." The assembly, however, showed the usual 
independent spirit in regard to the militia act, which it re- 
fused to alter. The Quakers were blamed for the failure of 
the lower house to improve the militia law, in accordance 
with the recommendation of the governor. An act provid- 
ing that actions under fifteen pounds should not be brought 
into the Supreme Court, was also passed at this session. 
Morris was in fact opposed to this measure, but assented to 
it, rather than endanger the harmony of the session. The 
support bill was passed without difficulty. That this peace- 
ful session would be followed by another attended with even 
more success, was the expressed hope of the governor. 

^N. J. A., vol, XV, p. 200. 
^Morris Papers, p. 140. 



1 12 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [112 

When the twelfth assembly met for the third session at 
Burlington, on October 16, 1742, His Excellency was> 
pleased to make a brief and favorable speech/ The assem- 
bly was cognizant of the fact, said the governor, that an- 
other suitable provision should be made for the support of 
government. To amend old laws, where experience had 
showed defects, was declared to be as necessary as forming 
new ones. The better maintenance of the roads and bridges 
was recommended. In order that the public welfare might 
be advanced, which was the true end of their meeting, the 
preservation of a proper temper and agreement in the legis- 
lature was confidently desired. 

The friendly tone of Morris's address may have led the 
assembly to seize this as a favorable opportunity for passing 
measures to test the governor. Council and assembly with- 
out difficulty agreed upon certain bills to which the governor 
later showed himself violently opposed. The absence of 
Robert Hunter Morris from the council at this time ac- 
counts in part for the harmony between the branches of the 
legislature.^ The younger Morris was not only the ablest 
member of the council, but was also the most enthusiastic 
supporter of the administration. During this session, both 
because of the personnel of the council and the character of 
the measures under consideration, the upper house was less 
susceptible than formerly to the influence of the executive.' 

Two acts were passed, one to declare how the estate or 
right of a feme covert might be converted or extinguished, 
and another concerning the acknowledging of deeds. Both 
were opposed by the governor.* Similar acts had previously 
been disallowed by the crown authorities, as encroachments 
upon the royal prerogative. Morris of course refused to as- 

^ N. J. A., vol. XV, p. 246. * Morris Papers, p. 154. 

*Ibid., p. 155. *A^. J. A., vol. XV, p. 270. 



I 13 J LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 113 

sent to the bills, and suggested that his acquiescence might 
have been desired merely to expose him to the deserved cen- 
sure of the king/ 

The assembly had added a bill for the regulation of fees 
to the support bill in the hope that the governor, to obtain 
the support of government, would assent to the whole. The 
ostensible reason for altering the fees was in response to 
complaints against the law practitioners, but the real inten- 
tion, according to Morris, was to reduce the income of the 
secretary and other officers of government." It was only 
with difficulty that the governor succeeded in having the 
fee provisions omitted from the support act. The bill for 
the support of government was the only act passed at this 
session of the legislature. 

It was the conduct of the assembly, regarding their bill 
to relieve the necessities of the people by emitting £40,000 
in bills of credit, that most seriously irritated the sensibilities 
of the governor. An additional measure, which was to be 
passed to provide for printing and signing the £40,000 in 
paper money, granted £500 to the governor.^ Hearsay had 
informed the governor, he told the assembly, that this act 
was intended to " be pass'd in a Secret manner, peculiar to 
itself, as usuall, and not sent home, that the ministry might 
not know I was to have 500 pounds for passing it." " You 
mistook your man," protested the governor, declaring the 
whole £40,000 would not have been a sufficient inducement. 

His objection to the bill was that it failed to contain 
a proper provision for the support of the government. Only 
if provision was made for the erection of a governor's resi- 
dence and houses for the meetings of the council and assem- 

'//. J. A., vol. XV, p. 272. 

^Morris Papers, p. 152. 

* Ibid., p. 154; iV. J. A., vol. XV, p. 273- 



114 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [114 

bly and for the safe-keeping- of the public records of the 
province, could an emission bill hope to find favor with 
him. There was a suspending clause to the act, but never- 
theless Morris rejected it, as containing nothing which 
would recommend it to the king's ministers. A more tactful 
governor would have spared himself the unpopularity which 
this conduct courted, and have left the disallowances to the 
royal officials. But the Morris motto was prerogative rather 
than tact. The statesmanship and foresight of his conten- 
tion, however, cannot be denied. 

It was not only in the legislation which the assembly pro^ 
posed that they ran counter to the governor. One of the 
representatives, Benjamin Smith from Hunterdon County, 
had had judgment against him by referees, to whom, ac- 
cording to a rule of the Supreme Court, the case had been 
referred.^ Smith had complained to the assembly against 
the decision, and a committee on grievances was appointed 
to consider the case. This conduct was in the nature of an 
appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, an assump' 
tion of power totally unwarranted. On November 18, 1742, 
the matter was referred for further consideration. Morris 
properly informed the house that erroneous judgments of 
the Supreme Court might be reversed by the governor and 
council, but not by the assembly. 

The lack of unanimity at this session convinced the gov- 
ernor that the people should be allowed a new choice of their 
representatives. He thought the present members were 
well-meaning, but were imposed upon and misled. After 
a long speech to the legislature, in which their misdeeds were 
enumerated and detailed, the governor dissolved the Gen- 
eral Assembly." 

^ N. J. A., vol. XV, p. 276; Morris Papers, p. 152. 
"^ Ibid., p. 267. 



115] LEGISLA TIVE HISTORY 1 1 5 

There were ten new members in the thirteenth assembly, 
when it met for the first session at Perth Amboy on October 
10, 1743, among them Samuel Nevill. Events showed that 
their attitude upon the public questions did not differ from 
that of the former house. Upon the first day of the session 
the governor addressed the houses, promising assent to bene- 
ficial laws and urging friendly intercourse between those 
who were concerned in making laws, and the discourage- 
ment of whatever might tend to create differences/ 

The assembly complained that many beneficial acts had 
been passed at recent sessions only to be rejected. Encour- 
aged by the assurance of the governor to assent to bene- 
ficial laws, when in his power to do' so, they would again pre- 
pare such measures as they regarded necessary. As proof 
of his good intentions, the assembly intimated that the gov- 
ernor should assent to the bills laid before him, before the 
support act was passed. That was declared by the governor 
to be of no consequence, for " the one ought not to be given 
in exchange for, or to purchase the other," and he would not 
be influenced by the possible fate of the act for support.^ 

Two of the assembly's favorite bills received the executive 
approval, " an Act concerning acknowledging Deeds in the 
Colony of New Jersey, and declaring how the Estate or 
Right of a Feme Covert may be conveyed or extinguished," 
and " an Act for ascertaining the Fees to be taken by the 
several Ofiicers." An act for the support of government 
for one year was also enacted. The council at this session 
rejected the assembly's bill to emit £40,000 in bills of credit. 

The session did not end, however, without a quarrel. Al- 
though the bill for ascertaining the fees had a suspending 
clause attached, the assembly passed a formal resolution that 

'A^. J. A., vol. XV, p. 279. 

* Assembly Journal, Oct. 22, 1743. 



I i6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [ii6 

it " ought to have due weight with the judges and all others 
concerned." This indiscretion led to the demand from the 
governor, that the assembly should justify such unwarrant- 
able conduct. The lower house calmly stated that an opin- 
ion only had been vouchsafed, for which they did not re- 
gard themselves accountable to anyone and asked that the 
session be brought to a close. On December loth, the gov- 
ernor told the assembly that their action in this matter was 
a contradiction of the suspending clause of the fee bill.^ 
They were thanked for the support act and then prorogued. 

War having been declared against France by King 
George II, the assembly was summoned to meet on June 22, 
1744, for the express purpose of putting the provincial 
militia upon a better footing. As early as October 22, 1743, 
an administrative session of the council had advised a re- 
vision of the militia act, in order to make it more service- 
able.^ In his address of June 22d, the governor pointed out 
the danger of lax military discipline to public safety, and 
recommended a prompt and adequate consideration of the 
militia act and the state of the colonial defence.^ 

The assembly, in committee of the whole house, resolved 
by a vote of 16 to 6 that the militia law in force was suffi- 
cient.^ In an address to the governor, notifying him of 
their decision, they asked for a recess because of the harvest 
season. This request was refused, and a militia act was 
thereupon prepared by the council, passed and then sent to 
the assembly. 

This bill substituted a money payment instead of active 
militia service for Quakers, but was rejected in the assem- 
bly by the same 16 to 6 vote as above. ° Although professing 

' A^. J. A., vol. XV, p. 315. *Ibid., p. 282. 

^ Ibid., p. 322. ^Assembly Journal, June 27, 1744. 

''Ibid., July 2, 1744- 



117] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY II7 

willingness to provide for all necessary military expenses, 
the assembly testified to the uncertainty and difficulty of at- 
tending thereto beforehand ! ^ The governor's interpreta- 
tion of this message does not appear to be amiss. He 
credited the assembly with willingness to provide for the 
defence of the province, after the country was invaded. 
The assembly ordered the council's militia bill to lie upon 
the table. As the representatives persisted in their attitude, 
the governor brought the thirteenth assembly to an end by 
dissolution on July 3, 1744. 

The election for members of the fourteenth assembly did 
not indicate an increase of prestige for the governor. 
Farmar, Leonard, and Bonnell were replaced by Hude, 
Ouke, and Crane, men of similar opinion. A like circum- 
stance occurred in the changes in the West Jersey delega- 
tion. The house, which met at Perth Amboy on August 
18, 1744, elected Samuel Nevill, a man of ability, as speaker. 

A brief message from the governor, on the opening day 
of the session, recommended simply that the defects of the 
militia act should be remedied.^ A week later, the assem- 
bly having taken the state of the militia into consideration, 
resolved that provision should be made from time to time 
for military expenses occasioned by calling out the forces.* 
Thereupon the assembly addressed the governor, prom.isingi 
to make the safety of the people as effectual as possible.* 
Although they hoped the need for forces would not arise, 
they would not hesitate to provide the means for repelling 
an enemy. 

Having expressed the desire for an adjournment, the 

^Assembly Journal, July 3, 1744. 
^N. J. A., vol. XV, p. 337. 
^ Assembly Journal, Aug. 25, 1744. 
*N. J. A., vol. XV, p. 338. 



Il8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [ng 

representatives were gratified that the governor should grant 
the request and leave the choice of the place of meeting to 
their decision.^ Burlington, having been favored as the 
meeting-place for the next session, the assembly convened 
there October 4th. The apparent harmony between Morris 
and the assembly upon matters of routine was merely a sur- 
face peace. The transaction of the public business having 
begun, the former causes of dissension were revived. It was 
in order better to control the legislature that the governor, 
whose presence at Burlington had been prevented by illness, 
adjourned it to meet at Trenton on November I4th.^ By 
a later adjournment the house was summoned to meet at 
Kingsbury, where the governor resided. 

The opposition to the governor became more pronounced 
than before. The bill to oblige sheriffs to give security, the 
£40,000 act, and a measure for laying a duty upon Indian, 
negro, and mulatto slaves, were subjects of bitter discus- 
sion between the two branches of the legislature. The situa- 
tion was made more difficult by an assembly report on the 
state of public affairs, agreed upon in a committee of the 
whole house on November 226.} 

This report, consisting of four resolutions, first declared 
that it was inconsistent with the proper freedom and privi- 
leges of the people that the same person should be both chief 
justice of the Supreme Court and a member of the council. 
This person, being none other than the governor's son and 
the most powerful councillor, the resolve was calculated to 
stir up at least two departments of the provincial govern- 
ment. Furthermore, the fact that there were only six or 
seven councillors was declared a hindrance to the public 

^ Assembly Journal, Aug. 25, 1744. 

■Ibid., Nov. 12, 1744. 

' A^. J. A., vol. XV, p. 369. 



1 19 I LEGISLATIVE HISTORY ng 

business and the cause of great delay. With splendid econ- 
omy and a tender forethought for their distant ruler, the 
assembly urged a frugal application of the money in the 
treasury, in order that the king might be assisted upon any 
emergency in the contests with France and Spain. Lastly, 
the colony was declared to be in such condition, as not to 
be able to support the government as largely as heretofore. 
Suiting the action to the word, the salaries of the officers of 
government were halved ! 

Such sentiments quite naturally evoked a reply from the 
council. Resolutions in answer to the assembly were passed 
on November 30th. ^ Resenting an attack upon the pre- 
rogative of the crown and reflections upon the character of 
the council, the upper house declared the appointment of 
the chief justice a duty for the king to perform, and not for 
the assembly to criticize. Likewise the king could appoint 
whatever number of councillors he desired, and might make 
such appointments whenever he saw fit. The governor's 
power in the appointment of councillors was restricted, as 
the council also mentioned, in that he could only fill vacan- 
cies when the number of councillors was less than seven. 
The assembly had previously stated that the action of the 
council had been improperly influenced upon certain meas- 
ures, an assertion which the upper house at this time de- 
clared untrue, an affront, and liable to disquiet the minds 
of the people of New Jersey. 

The wordy debate was continued by the assembly in re- 
buttal resolutions of December 5th. ^ Wordiness rather 
than argument characterized their answer. A disguise of 
epithets could not deceive, intimated the assembly, and con- 
scious of having acted in accordance with the trust reposed 
in them, they would reply to no further groundless attacks 

' N. J. A., vol. XV, p. 374. ' /bid., p. 379. 



I20 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [120 

upon their conduct. The incompatibihty of the same per- 
son acting as chief justice and councillor was reasserted. In 
theory this would certainly be true, but the argument of the 
assembly was nullified by the fact that a chief justice was 
forbidden to sit as a councillor when that body was consid- 
ering a case which he had determined in court. 

The council did not reply directly to the assembly, but, 
on December 8, 1744, delivered an address to the governor 
in defence of their conduct in rejecting certain bills passed 
by the lower house. ^ The act to oblige sheriffs to give se- 
curity was rejected because a provision allowed a sheriff's 
continuance in office for only three years ; the bill to lay an 
import duty upon slaves, because it would injure the 
farmers; and the act making £40,000 current in bills of 
credit, because its preamble was a subterfuge, and the theory 
of raising funds by paper money loans was unreasonable 
and unjust tO' the poor. Furthermore the council protested 
against the refusal of the assembly to join in a conference 
upon the militia act, and declared the pretended frugality 
of the lower house to be misdirected zeal. 

It is quite evident that the lower house was bidding for 
popular favor; was playing politics. Despite the assertion 
of the governor that he had not influenced the council in 
the slightest degree this seems improbable, for he was a 
clever manager, was in a tight place, and in desperate need 
of support.^ The council at least was playing an incon- 
sistent role. It is of course incontrovertible that opinions 
are subject to change, but that there should be such a direct 
and complete change of opinion in a short time on the part 
of the councillors is not a compliment to the stability of that 
body. This change was most marked in their altered notion 
of the beneficence of paper money. 

^ N. J. A., vol. XV, p. 381. ''Morris Papers, p. 229. 



121 ] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY I2i 

The disputed election of a loan-office commissioner 
widened the breach between the governor and assembly at 
this session. The house received a petition from certain 
Hunterdon County inhabitants complaining that the elec- 
tion of Andrew Reed over Joseph Yard was a grievance 
and an evil precedent/ As the complaint was against 
justices of the peace, Morris's appointees, the representa- 
tives, with characteristic boldness, seized this favorable op- 
portunity with avidity. 

The facts, as represented by the justices, were that fifteen 
votes had been cast for Reed, ten by justices, and six for 
Yard, all by freeholders.^ The only question apparently 
was as to the right of the justices to vote. If Yard felt 
aggrieved, he was advised by the governor to appeal to a 
court for redress. 

An assembly committee appointed to investigate this 
matter reported, on November 9th, that an act of the 7 
George II provided for the election of loan-office commis- 
sioners by a majority of the freeholders of the county, with 
the concurrence of three justices.^ This report having been 
accepted, only Leonard, Ouke and Hude disagreeing, the 
house resolved that the Hunterdon election was " Arbitrary, 
Illegal, and in itself Void," and asked for the removal of 
the justices involved or the institution of legal proceedings 
against them. A statement of fact regarding the case, and 
the opinion of the assembly as expressed in the resolution, 
were embodied in an address to the governor.* 

The governor, failing to discover the act of 7 George II, 
to which the committee had referred, addressed the house 
upon the subject.^ His position was that, though the elec- 

^ Assembly Journal, Nov. 7, 1744. "^ Ibid., Nov. 7, 1744. 

^ Ibid., Nov. 9, 1744. ^ Ibid., Nov. 10, 1744. 

^Assembly Journal, Dec. 8, 1744. 



122 THE PROVINCE OF NEIV JERSEY [122 

tion might be voidable, it was not void until declared so by 
some competent authority. It was a question for the courts 
to decide, and legal measures were open to any one who felt 
aggrieved. His message was a long document in support 
of his position. 

This was simply another attempt on the part of the lower 
house to exercise authority not legally delegated to it. Al- 
though Morris had been unable to unearth the act of the 7 
George II, to which the assembly referred, that act was not 
a fiction of the house committee. The act of that year " for 
making Forty Thousand Pounds in Bills of Credit " regu- 
lated the election of loan-office commissioners.^ Neverthe- 
less, the position of the governor was correct in this matter. 
Although a dissolution put an end to the quarrel at this time, 
the question was later revived. 

On December 7th the assembly asked to be dismissed, if 
the public business required no further attention at the time. 
The next day, after having stated his position in the Hun- 
terdon election case, Morris dissolved the General Assem- 
bly, regretting that the session had been so unsatisfactory.^ 
Unsatisfactory the session had been, many important meas- 
ures had been under consideration, but had failed to pass. 
Such included the acts to oblige sheriffs to give security to 
keep actions of £15 or under from the Supreme Court, to 
emit £40,000 in bills of credit, to settle and regulate the 
provincial militia, to regulate the New York and New Jer- 
sey boundary line and to improve and encourage the manu- 
facture of flour. As if to stamp the session as a comedy of 
errors, the only public act passed provided for the encour- 
agement of the destruction of crows, blackbirds, squirrels 
and woodpeckers in three counties.^ 

'Allinson, op. cit., p. 99. ^Assembly Journal, Dec. 8, 1744. 

'Allinson, op. cit., p. 138. 



123] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1 23 

For the third successive year elections for assembly repre- 
sentatives were held. A large number of new members ap- 
peared at the first session of the fifteenth assembly, begun 
at Perth Amboy on April 4, 1745. Although the personnel 
of a part of the East Jersey delegation changed, Morris con- 
tinued to draw his support from that section. The election 
had rather weakened than strengthened his position. 

The address of the governor to the legislature on April 
5th was a heated harangue against the shortcomings of the 
former assembly.* He reviewed the conduct of the assem- 
bly during the quarrel with the council at the last session, 
insinuating that the house was governed by the impetuosity 
of blind passions. They were ordered to take notice of his 
determination not to assent to any of their bills until the 
support of government had been properly provided. The 
incompatibility of uniting the offices of chief justice and 
councillor was declared no valid reason for denying the 
support of government. Little heeding his advice in prac- 
tice, Morris urged that condescension and cool debate, rather 
than warm contentions, should regulate their conduct, when 
differing in opinion from the other departments. The only 
subject directly presented for their consideration was the 
plan of an expedition under Shirley against the French, 

That the assembly could reply to the impassioned address 
of the governor with as much equanimity as they succeeded 
in exhibiting, reflects credit upon their patience. It was not 
delivered until May 2, 1745, its chief complaint being that 
the governor had taken pains to undervalue and explode 
some of the proceedings of the former house. ^ They not 
unnaturally wearied at having long tirades against the evil 
practises of a former house hurled at them. The governor 
was referred to the council for an explanation as to why the 

' M J. A., vol. XV, p. 393. ' Ibid., p. 410. 



124 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [124 

government had been unsupported, and his refusal to pass 
any bill until the government had been supported was re- 
gretted. 

After the assembly address had been delivered the legis- 
lature was prorogued for five days, but upon reassembling 
was obliged to wait until May 13th before the governor re- 
plied to their address. In was another long account, longer 
than ordinary, of the misbehavior of recent assemblies, and 
an exposition of their unwarrantable conduct/ The action 
of the people's representatives in passing an act to emit 
paper money, when it was known that that subject was under 
the consideration of the parliament, received especially se- 
vere criticism. Resolved that no recent outrages should fail 
to be mentioned, the case of the Hunterdon County loan- 
office election was unearthed. They were enlightened as to 
their duty to the people. Simple, said Morris, was that 
duty. Their constituents wished them to support the gov- 
ernment and not to quarrel with the governor. 

Before the prorogation of May 26. the support bill had 
been passed, but it allowed the governor only £500 and was 
certain to be rejected on that account. The question of aid- 
ing the expedition had also been considered, but action was 
deferred, pending the attitude of the home government 
toward this affair, and because it was too^ late to render any 
naval assistance.^ An act for settling the militia had also 
been passed. The prorogation, however, had nullified this 
business, and on May i8th, after the interchange of lengthy 
state documents, the assembly inquired if there was anything 
further to be transacted.' 

Speaker Nevill waited upon the governor at Kingsbury, 
and in reply to the message was told that it was His Ex- 

^N. J. A., vol. XV, p. 418. 

^Assembly Journal, Apr. 26, 1745. ^ Ibid., May 18, 1745. 



125] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 125 

cellency's privilege to prorogue the legislature when he 
wished to. The house was ordered tO' begin again on the 
business recommended at the previous session. On May 
28th the assembly declared their refusal tO' answer the gov- 
ernor's long statement of May 13, 1745. The temptation 
was overmastering, however, and with beautiful incon-* 
sistency they attacked the chief executive regarding the 
support of government and the militia act.^ 

Meanwhile Shirley had renewed his application for aid 
from New Jersey.^ With commendable promptness, the as- 
sembly prepared and passed a bill applying £2,000 for the 
king's service. It passed the council and received the gov- 
ernor's assent on June i, 1745. 

The assembly was favored with another long message 
from Morris on June ist.'' The same objects were treated 
in much the same way as before. The governor had been 
notified that the government would be supported in ex- 
change, virtually, for his assent to the acts to emit £40,000, 
to oblige sheriffs to give security for their offices, and to pre- 
vent actions under £15 being tried in the Supreme Court. 
Morris said the sole cause of disagreement was the paper 
money bill, and he could give no assurance that the king 
would assent to it, even if he did. 

The speaker was then directed to order adjournments of 
three weeks at a time, until he was otherwise notified.* It 
was the sixteenth of August when the house next met. Be- 
cause of the governor's illness, the session had been ad- 
journed to Trenton. On August 21st the assembly heard 
the governor's speech. It contained recommendations for a 
more suitable provision to effectually defend the country, 
and for the support of government, while the governor re- 

* Assembly Journal, May 28, 1744. ^ Morris Papers, p. 241. 

^Assembly Journal, June i. 1745- * A'^. 7. ^., vol. xv, p. 446. 



126 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [126 

gretted the impossibility of his meeting the legislature at 
Perth Amboy, the proper meeting-place for this session.^ 
The assembly was urged also to repay to the treasury the 
£2,000 appropriated for the Cape Breton expedition. 

The lower house was disinclined to contribute further for 
military affairs, but began a controversy concerning their 
meeting at Trenton. The governor was asked for his in- 
structions as to the meeting-place of the legislature.^ Re- 
fusing to comply with this request, Morris curtly told the 
house that the governor had the sole right to call, adjourn, 
prorogue and dissolve assemblies, that his commission might 
be inspected, but as for his instructions, they were secret. 
The assembly determined to elicit the desired information 
from the council, but before an answer could be returned to 
their request the legislature was prorogued to September 
24th. ^ 

Illness again having prevented the governor from per- 
sonally attending the session at Burlington, he wrote to 
Speaker Nevill, that at the request of the representatives he 
had postponed the session to this time, when, it was hoped, 
" the business of their husbandry could not well obstruct 
their thinking calmly and effectually " upon what was 
recommended to them.* Repetition of the request for gov- 
ernmental support was made, and they were reminded of the 
unsettled condition of the militia. The governor had oc- 
casion to allude for the first time to the land riots. Before 
the meeting of the assembly Samuel Baldwin had been 
forcibly released from the Essex County jail, where he had 
been imprisoned for resisting an order of the council of 
East Jersey proprietors for surveying certain tracts of their 
lands. The anti-proprietary demonstration, of which this 

'A'. J. A., vol. XV, p. 447. ^Assembly Jouryial, Aug. 23, 1742. 

^ Ibid., Aug. 24, 1745. ^Morris Papers, p. 270. 



127] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 127 

was the first during this period, will be treated at length in a 
subsequent chapter. To cope with the situation, and pre- 
vent the riot from becoming a rebellion, the assembly was 
urged to take proper measures. 

On October 3d the house replied to the governor's com- 
munication.^ The successful enactment of bills, which they 
had prepared at both Trenton and Amboy, had been frus- 
trated by the council or invalidated by prorogation of the 
governor. Confirmed in their former opinions by the sen- 
timents of their constituents, the preparation of the desired 
measures would be deferred until a more favorable oppor- 
tunity. Recourse might be taken to the militia act of 173S, 
still in force, but any ill-consequences due to the militia of 
the province should be chargeable to those who nullified the 
intentions of the lower house ! It was likewise the opinion 
of the assembly that the existing laws, properly enforced, 
would check the deplorable Essex County disturbances. 

The inability of the governor to attend the session at Bur- 
lington, led him to adjourn the legislature to Trenton, where 
it met on October 4th. Suspicious as to the legality of the 
procedure by which they were convened at Trenton, the as- 
sembly asked the council if the adjournment had been taken 
by advice of the council given to Morris." With conscious 
importance, and an awful sense of their responsibilities, the 
council declared that advices given to the governor were 
private secrets of state, the divulgence of which they were 
bound to prevent. The desired information could not be 
given. 

Such an answer was not calculated to turn away wrath. 
Messrs. Spicer and Fisher were appointed to wait upon the 
governor to obtain firsthand information regarding the im- 

^ Assembly JouriiaL Oct. 3. 1745. 
'A^. J. A., vol. XV, p. 451. 



128 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [128 

portant matter/ Assembly messages must come to him 
through the speaker, thought Morris, who refused tO' re- 
ceive the two representatives. By this time, fully convinced 
that the governor had neither received nor asked the advice 
of the council upon the question of the last adjournment, 
and because of the treatment accorded their committee, the 
assembly resolved that the refusal to receive their members 
was " a manifest denial of the Freedom of Access to the 
Governor and of the Privileges of this House," and that they 
would proceed no further on the public business until they 
were informed to their satisfaction under what conditions 
they were removed from Burlington to Trenton.^ 

After four more days of waiting it was resolved that the 
detejition of the house for so long, without being informed 
as to the business which had brought them together, was 
" a great grievance to this House in particular, and to the 
Inhabitants of this Colony in general ".^ 

Thereupon followed a typical lengthy and intemperate 
Morris message.* Certain of the expressions of the assem- 
bly, the governor was fully convinced, might " gratify the 
malicious temper of low minds, unacquainted with common 
rules of decency, and incapable of anything above the scum 
of the people ". With apparent delight, Morris refers the 
plowmen representatives, whom he characterizes as " the in- 
quisitive part of mankind ", to Ecclesiasticus, chapter 38, 
verses 25, 26 and 33, to learn the part which they might 
expect to play in public affairs. Old matters of dispute 
were mentioned, and the recent misunderstandings reviewed 
at considerable length. 

After such a show of temper on the part of the governor, 
one does not wonder that a future assembly stubbornly re- 

* Assembly Journal, Oct. 11, 1745. "^ Ibid., Oct. 14, 1745. 

^Assembly Journal, Oct. 18, 1745. *Ibid., Oct. 18, 1705. 



I29J LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 129 

fused to pay the Morris heirs, the arrears of his salary. 
Following the governor's long message, the assembly had 
been prorogued. It was later dissolved, however, and a new 
election held for members of the sixteenth assembly. As 
the election resulted in making but two changes in the 
house, it scarcely compensated the governor. 

The regular meeting place for the first session of the six- 
teenth assembly was Perth Amboy, but on account of the 
governor's health the legislature was prorogued, on Febru- 
ary 2d, to meet at Trenton, on February 26th. Robert 
Lawrence was chosen speaker. 

Just as harsh as had been his last message to the former 
assembly, correspondingly conciliatory w^as the governor's 
first message to this new house.^ On March 4, 1746, Morris 
told the assembly that their adjournment to Trenton had 
been by advice of the council. The unsupported condition 
of the officers of government, the need of defence against 
the enemy, and the land troubles in Newark were recom- 
mended to the consideration of the legislature, and despatches 
relating to the French and Indians were to be laid before 
the assembly. An earnest plea to promote the welfare of 
the province was made, the message concluding with the 
expressed hope that " the God of Peace direct your Consul- 
tations for the General Good ". 

The governor's ill-health and the advice of the council, 
the assembly graciously declared to be sufificient reason for 
meeting at Trenton.^ Willingness to join with the other 
branches of government to settle the militia and repel in- 
vasions and to support the government was expressed. All 
departments seemed disposed to act in harmony. 

The Hunterdon County representative complained on 

^Morris Papers, p. 299. 

^ Assembly Journal, Mar. 11, 1746. 



130 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [130 

March 13th that the former grievance regarding the elec- 
tion of Reed as a loan-office commissioner, had not been 
rectified. The governor was asked to take measures to re- 
dress the grievance.^ He replied as before, however, that 
if the choice was illegal, it should be determined by the 
courts. Nevertheless he promised to obtain the attorney gen- 
eral's opinion, and ask the advice of the council. This 
promise doubtless appeased the ardor of the house for the 
time being. 

An act for better settling and regulating the militia was 
passed by both houses, and received the governor's assent 
on May 8, 1746.^ The favorite measures of the assembly 
were also passed by that body, namely, the bill to prevent 
actions under £15 being brought into the Supreme Court, 
to emit £40,000 in paper money, and to oblige sheriffs to 
give security. A bargain could not be struck regarding the 
support act, and the harmony of the session was abruptly 
ended. On May 6th the assembly having promised to sup- 
port the government if the governor would assent to the 
bills they had passed, Morris agreed to assent if they would 
support.^ The less exacting attitude of Morris is apparent 
at this time, because he confessed at the time that on account 
of illness, he had been able to read only the militia act. 
His promise to assent to the assembly bills, in exchange for 
support, was evidently made before he had examined the 
acts. 

The following day the governor received a message from 
the lower house, with the terms upon which the govern- 
ment would be supported. The governor's salary was 
halved for two years, but Morris or his executors were to 

^Assembly Journal, Mar. 1796. 
^AUinson, op. cit., p. 139. 
^Assembly Journal, May 6, 1746. 



I3l] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY I31 

receive £1,000 from the first interest money arising out of 
the £40,000 emission, if the royal assent should be given. 
These conditions proved unattractive to the governor, and 
on May 8th he assented only to the militia act. Morris's 
last illness, which resulted in his death on May 21, 1746, 
doubtless saved the life of this assembly.^ 

From May 9th the assembly had met and adjourned 
from day to day until June 4th, when President Hamilton, 
who had succeeded Morris, prorogued the legislature to 
June nth. His address of the ensuing day especially recom- 
mended the Canada expedition to the consideration of the 
council and assembly.^ Both branches of the legislature 
responded with alacrity to provide New Jersey's share of 
men and money for the expedition into the enemy's coun- 
try. Acts were passed in June, 1746, to encourage the en- 
listing of 500 volunteers, and to make current £10,000 in 
bills of credit to defray the expenses of the forces. Sub- 
sequent acts were passed in November, 1746, and May, 
1747, to further provide for the troops. 

In regard to the land disturbances that continued to 
plague the colony, President Hamilton was as unsuccessful 
in securing the co-operation of the assembly as Governor 
Morris had been. To guard against the ill-will of the king, 
they were urged to check the lawless spirit in certain sections 
of the province. But only the Canadian expedition re- 
ceived favorable action during this administration of Presi- 
dent Hamilton. 

There were three sessions of the legislature during Ham- 
ilton's administration, all at Perth Amboy. The second 
sitting of the sixteenth assembly ended on June 20, 1746. 
The next meeting continued from October 9th to November 

' Morris papers , p . 311. 
^Assembly Journal, June 12, 1746. 



132 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [132 

I St, when the assembly was dismissed upon their own de- 
sire. In May, 1747, the legislature was called together to 
provide for the support of government, to continue the 
supply of the troops in Canada, and to consider the dis- 
ordered condition of the colony on account of the anti-pro- 
prietary outbreaks,^ The only business consummated, how- 
ever, was to grant a further supply for the New Jersey 
forces. 

^Assembly Journal, May 6, 1747. 



CHAPTER V 

Legislative History — The Belcher and Franklin 
Administrations 

The next governor, Jonathan Belcher, met the legislature 
for a brief session on August 20, 1747. The assembly was 
told, in the opening address, of the new royal appointee's 
pleasure at coming to " this fine flourishing Province ".^ 
That the representatives would, in accordance with their 
privilege and duty, grant a proper support to the govern- 
ment, the optimistic Belcher had no reason to doubt. The 
confusion into which the province had been thrown because 
of the audacious attempts of seditious persons to subvert the 
government was deplored. To' combat against this spirit 
was the evident duty of governor, council and assembly, 
and having restored peace to the colony, future genera- 
tions would rise up and call them blessed. A beautiful ideal, 
but under the circumstances, difficult, if not impossible, of 
attainment, was pictured to the lawmakers of colonial New 
Jersey. The governor promised to make this session short, 
if it so pleased the legislature. 

Both houses returned " handsome " addresses to His 
Excellency's speech. The council was heartily pleased with 
favorable sentiments which augured so much for the wel- 
fare of the people, and promised to strengthen Belcher's 
hands to the utmost of their ability." The enthusiasm of 
the assembly's response must have gladdened Belcher's! 
1 eart. No' detail of the governor's address remained unan- 

' A*. J. A., vol. vii, p. 19. "^ Ibid., p. 23. 

133] 133 



134 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [134 

swered.^ Joy at his safe arrival was expressed and abundant 
promises were made. The exuberance which led them to 
state that it was " morally impossible " for the New Jersey 
paper money to sink in value, was doubtless a result of the 
general enthusiasm which led them into mistaken particu- 
lars. A short session was declared to be eminently ac- 
ceptable at this time, but not simply for the convenience of 
the assembly members. With proper solicitude, such a 
course was declared to be desirable in order that their hon- 
ored governor might "have some time of Ease from the 
Fatigues which so long a Voyage at Sea, and a Journey 
from Perth Amboy to this Place, must occasion." The 
legislature was in session at Burlington, 

The session lasted but five days, and the only business 
transacted aside from the preparation of congratulatory 
addresses, was the appointment of a conference committee 
by each house to consider ways and means for suppressing 
the riots and disorders in the colony.^ This committee did 
not meet until the November session of the legislature. 

The sixth sitting of the sixteenth assembly began at Bur- 
lington on November 17, 1747, and continued to February 
18, 1748. The favorable opportunity for enacting many 
measures opposed by Morris had at length come to the as- 
sembly. Since December, 1743, the only laws that had been 
passed, except the act to encourage the destruction of crows 
and the naturalization act of 1744, had been in connection 
with military affairs. Now, after the long and bitter con- 
flicts with Morris, legislation was resumed, and the assem- 
bly brought in all their favorite measures. 

The governor addressed the legislature on November 19, 
1747, bringing to their attention four important subjects.' 

^ N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 25. * Ibid., vol. xv, p. 530. 

* Ibid., vol. vii, p. 67. 



135] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 135 

An expedition against Canada, sponsored by Shirley, had 
been postponed, but the colony was expected by the king 
to continue providing for the troops already in the Canadian- 
service, with the promise of an ultimate reimbursement by 
Parliament. The perpetrators of the violent outrages aris- 
ing from the land controversies should be punished. Some 
counterfeit Jersey bills having been sent to the governor 
by a Rhode Island magistrate. Belcher was confirmed in the 
opinion that there existed a wicked combination of villains 
engaged in forging Jersey money. This matter certainly 
deserved a careful inquiry. The last recommendation was 
that the officers of government should be paid without un- 
reasonable delay. 

It was not until January 7, 1748, and after the support 
bill and other measures had passed the assembly, that the 
lower house answered the governor's speech of the preced- 
ing November.^ The support bill had been dutifully passed, 
but the assembly regretted that the colony was in no condi- 
tion to act as generously as their inclination tempted them 
to do in connection with supplying the forces. The riotous 
disturbances in the colony were under consideration, and 
it was the assembly's opinion that unusual vigilance on the 
part of the attorney general and other officers would be the 
most suitable expedient against counterfeiting. 

Relations between the council and assembly were strained 
when the support act was under consideration. The coun- 
cil's demand for certain vouchers in connection with sev- 
eral accounts in the act started the trouble.^ On January i , 
1748, the assembly began the New Year by enunciating the 
favorite doctrine of their absolute control of the public 
money. With extreme frankness it was declared to be solely 
the assembly's privilege to judge of the proper expenditures 
in the public service. 

'A^. J. A., vol. XV, p. 574- ^ Ibid., p. 565- 



136 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [136 

The council claimed as their undoubted right the power 
to propose, alter, or amend any money bill/ This right was 
especially theirs in the present case, where the question was 
declared to be simply the application of money given to 
the king by former laws of the colony. Letters from the 
lords of trade were cited as evidence of the propriety and 
legality of their contention. Anxious tO' restore the peace 
of the province, the council decided tO' wait for a more 
favorable season before exerting this right. Meanwhile, 
this condescension oii their part was not tO' be interpreted as 
a precedent ! 

The governor objected to the support bill, because it did 
not settle upon him a yearly salary as suggested by the 
king.^ After the assembly refused to alter the act, how- 
ever, it received Belcher's assent. 

An expedition under General Shirley having been planned 
against Crown Point, the governor sent a message tO' the 
assembly, on January 19, 1748, urging that aid should be 
given to the plan.^ To defend the colonies and to secure 
the fidelity of the Six Nations were plans which the house 
felt disposed to encourage. But this scheme of Shirley's 
seemed new and extraordinary, and they could furnish the 
governments concerned nothing more substantial than best 
wishes for the success of the enterprise. 

The conference committee upon ways and means tO' sup- 
press the riots met after much difficulty and drew up a state- 
ment of facts bearing upon the disorders. But only patient 
persistence on the part of the council brought about the de- 
sired conference. The assembly had displayed suspicious 
aptitude for excusing the non-appearance of their committee, 
and although the first meeting of the two committees in joint 

'A^. J. A., vol. XV, p. 635. 

"* Assembly Journal, Feb. 17, 1748. ^ Ibid., Jan. 19, 1748. 



137] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY i^^y 

session was fixed for November 30th, it was December loth 
before it was held.^ A direct result of the conference was a 
resolution passed by both houses declaring it dangerous and 
an infringement upon the privileges of the legislature for 
any number of persons tO' assemble in a riotous manner in 
order to lay petitions before either the council or assem- 
bly.^ Each house entered into a separate resolution against 
riotous petitioning. This action had been taken because a 
mob at Trenton had threatened to proceed to Burlington to 
lay grievances before the assembly.^ 

At this session also' twO' acts were passed designed to 
check the growing disorders. One was " an Act for the 
suppressing and preventing of Riots, Tumults and other 
Disorders ".* Two earlier attempts, in May and August, 
1747, had failed to secure the enactment of this measure. 
The disorders had increased so alarmingly that nO' diffi- 
culty in passing the bill was experienced at this session. It 
received the governor's assent February 18, 1748. On the 
same day Belcher assented to " an Act to pardon the per- 
sons guilty of the Insurrections, Riots, Tumults and other 
Disorders, raised and committed in this Province." ^ This 
act was of questionable utility, for very few of the disturbers 
availed themselves of the royal pardon. 

The legislature also passed a bill to punish coiners and 
counterfeiters of foreign coins and of the provincial bills 
of credit.** It was disallowed by the royal authorities No- 
vember 23, 1749.^ 

This had been a long but profitable session of the legisla- 
ture. Nineteen acts were passed, among them some that 

^N. J. A., vol. XV, pp. 539, 545. 553- "^Ibid., p. 559- 

^ Ibid., p. 551. *Ibid., p. 634. 

'Allinson, op. cit., p. 171. 

*A^. J. A., vol. XV, p. 572. "^ Ibid., vol. vii, p. 305. 



X38 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [138 

had been most stubbornly opposed by Morris, and had led 
him to use harsh language freely against the representatives. 
Besides those already mentioned, the act tO' prevent actions 
under £15 in the Supreme Court, the act to oblige sheriffs 
to give security for the discharge of their office and the act 
to erect Cumberland County, were passed. 

Three bills were enacted with suspending clauses. Al- 
though Belcher recommended that favorable action be taken 
upon all of them by the English officials, only one was al- 
lowed, that regulating the fees to be taken in the colony. 
The bill to emit £40,000 in bills of credit was disallowed, 
and also the one for running the New York and Nev/ 
Jersey boundary line. Opposition to the latter bill on the 
part of New York led to its disallowance. The troublesome 
boundary dispute between these two neighboring colonies 
will be considered in detail in a subsequent chapter. 

On February 18, 1748, Governor Belcher prorogued the 
legislature.^ The council and assembly were congratulated 
because of the unanimity that had characterized their delib- 
erations and the success that had attended their efforts. The 
governor too hoped that the rioters would avail themselves 
of the lenity of the act of pardon. 

It had become usual, although not without exception, for 
elections to be held for a new assembly upon the accession 
of a governor. This had not been done when Belcher began 
his administration, and after the long session which ended 
in February, 1748, sentiment in favor of a dissolution be- 
came evident. On the other hand, an election was opposed 
at this time, because of the disturbed condition of the 
province.^ The latter view, which was held by the pro- 
prietary interests, prevailed and two more sittings of the 
sixteenth assembly were held. 

'A''. J. A., vol. vii, p, 104. * Ibid., p. 122. 



139] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 139 

Governor Belcher sent a message to the legislature on 
July 7, 1748, the day it had convened at Burlington. The 
business which was at this time recommended was the ap- 
pointment of commissioners to represent the colony at an 
Indian Conference at Albany.^ For this one purpose only 
had the legislature been called together. New Jersey had 
not heretofore united with other colonies in Indian confer- 
ences, and the assembly, wishing the proposed conference 
well, refrained from sending delegates.^ 

The last session of the sixteenth assembly was begun at 
Burlington on October 21st. The governor's health, now 
impaired by old age, did not allow of his meeting the legis- 
lature at Perth Amboy, and the council had advised in favor 
of Burlington. Exaggerated regard for prerogative led 
several representatives to express the pronounced opinion 
that the sittings should be held at Perth Amboy. In defer- 
ence to this sentiment, the General Assembly was adjourned, 
October 25th, to meet at Amboy on the tenth of the follow- 
ing month. ^ 

The governor had addressed the legislature upon the 
opening day of the session at Burlington.* After reference 
had been made to the reason for holding the session there, 
the two important subjects mentioned were the support of 
government and the continued nefarious operations of the 
counterfeiters. 

It was not until after the adjournment to Perth Amboy 
that the assembly returned an answer to the opening speech.'' 
Their humble address presented on November i6th re- 
ferred to the governor's willing accession to the request for 

'A''. J. A., vol. vii, p. 149. 

* Assembly Journal, July 8, 1748. 

^Ibid., Oct. 25, 1748. * Ibid. Oct. 21, 1748. 

*A^. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 2. 



I40 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [140 

an adjournment as demonstrative of his justice and upright- 
ness. The promise to consider the financial necessities of 
the province was made, but ambiguity and uncertainty- 
characterized their attitude toward counterfeiting. The 
wicked practice was regretted, it was hoped that the coun- 
terfeiters would be punished, but the house avoided men- 
tioning any role which it might be expected to play. As 
the last session was long, the assembly hoped that this one 
would be short. 

Both branches of the legislature applied themselves tO' the 
consideration of the public business, but not to^ what had 
been recommended by the governor. That was in large 
part due tO' the unqualified rejection by the assembly of 
amendments which the council had made to an act to enable 
the legislature to settle the quotas as levied upon the coun- 
ties.^ The lack of consideration which the legislature had 
accorded his recommendations drew from Belcher a second 
message.- Counterfeiting and the support of government 
claimed only a portion of the communication. The renewal 
of land disturbances in Essex County led the governor to 
earnestly plead for the institution of such effectual measures 
as would restore order. 

The proprietary influence of the council was engendering 
the opposition of the popular tendencies of the lower house. 
The tide of popular feeling against the proprietors was so 
intense at this time that it was inevitably reflected in the 
representative branch of the General Assembly. It was of 
course not a mere accidental coincidence that the coiners 
of false money plied their trade most industriously when 
the land troubles were most pronounced. Consequently the 
attitude of the assembly toward both counterfeiting and 
rioting was the same. The lower house professed mistrust 

*A^. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 24. ^ Ibid., p. 25. 



141 ] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY I4I 

of many officials who executed the laws, who were to bring 
offenders under the law to justice. Not only to be con- 
sistent, but also' as an added opportunity to evince opposi- 
tion to distasteful office-holders, the office-holders and not 
the law^s were declared to be at fault. 

Under the circumstances a conflict between the two houses 
was inevitable. The council's address to the governor 
stated that instead of any laxity on their part as regarded 
the counterfeiters, a council committee had vigorously in- 
vestigated the subject, and new laws would be proposed.^ 
Upon this subject, the assembly regarded the proper execu- 
tion of the existing laws a sufficient obstruction tO' all of- 
fenders.^ Quite naturally no legislation against counter- 
feiting was enacted at this session. 

The land riots, however, provoked the most serious divi- 
sion in the legislature. To secure proper remedies upon this 
head was not only a part of the council's public duty, but in 
addition was a concern in which the majority was person- 
ally interested. The governor was asked by the council not 
to end the session until adequate remedies had been pro- 
posed.^ Existing laws against the rioters should be more 
properly executed, repeated the assembly.* If a proper 
test proved their inefficiency, additional laws would be con- 
sidered at the next session. 

Reflections against some of the officers of government 
were discovered by the council in the reply of the assembly 
to the governor's address.^ The council declared that the 
disorders in several counties prevented the administration 
of justice. Authority should be given to the governor to 
issue commissions, whenever necessary, for holding trials 
outside of the counties in which crimes were committed. 

*A^. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 37- *Ibid., p. 41- 

'/<&xV/., p. 38. V^xrf., p. 43- "^ Ibid., ■p. an- 



142 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [142 

The legislature should supply funds for maintaining troops 
to strengthen the government. 

The assembly would join in no legislation, but declared 
the assumption of the council to direct the methods of rais- 
ing money an infringement upon the rights of the lower 
house/ Accusing the representatives of neglecting their 
duty, the council resolved to lay the condition of the colony 
before the king.^ Several curt resolves were then sent to 
the assembly in answer to their blunt refusal to join in any 
measures with the council. 

The same day, December i6th, Belcher assented to six 
acts and prorogued the legislature to meet at Burlington 
on February 16, 1749.' 

An unusual and novel incident happened immediately 
after the governor had prorogued the council. That body 
offered to give the chief executive advice, but received the 
unexpected reply that advice would be asked for when 
wanted.* A communication was sent to the governor on 
December 22, 1748, however, containing the advice which 
the council had been so brusquely prevented from offering." 

The avowed disagreement between the governor and his 
council at this time had more an apparent than a real in- 
fluence. Belcher had consistently maintained an impartial 
attitude in the land difificulties and continued to believe that 
the troublesome question could be decided without an appeal 
to the home officials. It was this optimism which, if per- 
haps misdirected, was none the less sincere, that led to the 
dissolution of the sixteenth assembly. The new assembly, 
though changed somewhat in personnel, exemplified the 
same spirit as the preceding house." The first session of the 

'iV. y. y4., vol. xvi, p. 64. ^/did., p. 65. '/did., p. 68. 

^ Ibid., vol. vii, p. 183. ^ Ibid., p, 185. 

* There were seven new members. 



143] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1 43 

seventeenth assembly began at Burlington, February 20, 
1749. 

Governor Belcher's address repeated his sentiments upon 
the distressed condition of the colony/ To his message, 
the assembly replied that the choice of representatives to 
this assembly demonstrated the satisfaction of the people 
with what had formerly been done.^ Confidence was ex- 
pressed that the governor, having no private claims in the 
colony, would not be induced to deviate from the impartiality 
heretofore shown in his administration. 

The assembly during the session advocated extending a 
second offer of pardon to repenting evil-doers, but punish- 
ments, not pardons, were what the council planned for the 
rioters, and a conference with the assembly was refused.' 
Belcher's faith in a satisfactory adjustment of the dispute 
by the legislature was shattered; his patience was over- 
come. On March 28th the legislature was prorogued, and 
the governor later asked for special orders from the king, 
because the assembly refused to raise money to protect the 
jails."* 

At this session the dispute over the quotas act was con- 
tinued. The contention in respect to this measure involved 
the question of the taxation of unprofitable lands. Accord- 
ing to the bill, " the whole of all profitable tracts of Land, 
held by Patent Deed or Survey whereon any improvement is 
made " was made taxable.^ The council refused to pass the 
bill unless the declaration was clearly made that nothing 
in the act was intended to conflict with the royal instruction 
that no unprofitable lands should be taxed. This was a vital 
concern to the councillors, most of whom were large pro- 
prietary landholders. 

^Assembly Jour?ial, Feb. 21, 1749. 

^Ibid., Feb. 25, 1749. ^ Ibid., Mar. 2i, 2;^, 1749. 

* N. J. A,, vol. vii, p. 249. ''Ibid., vol. xvi, p. I3S- 



144 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [144 

Having been sent to the council, after it had passed the 
assembly, the bill was amended to coincide with the opinion 
of the councillors, and returned tO' the lower house. That 
the objectionable portion of the measure did not conflict 
with the governor's instructions was strongly maintained 
by the assembly. Even so' the governor might be left to 
judge as to the worth of the bill, and no- alteration which 
so nearly affected the precious privileges of the people could 
be tolerated. The lower house refused to so much as confer 
with the council upon the subject. 

It was specious arguing which urged that the governor 
should be the proper judge when the houses disagreed upon 
a measure, and a course of conduct tO' which the assembly 
would have been the last to subscribe as a fixed principle. 
The object in view, however, to shoulder the council with 
the responsibility for the continued failure of the act, was 
easily accomplished. Facetious in the extreme was the as- 
sumption that when the governor and council were at odds, 
the latter would submit such an important measure solely 
to the judgment of the former. The words in the act to 
which the council objected do' not appear to conflict with the 
royal instruction. Had the assembly been entirely sincere, 
the council amendment in itself could not have been ob- 
jectionable, for it would not have altered the meaning of 
the act, unless it were repugnant tO' the royal instruction. 
The real object the lower house had in view was to prevent 
the council from amending the bill. 

On September 25, 1749, the council and assembly met at 
Perth Amboy for the second session of the seventeenth as- 
sembly. Samuel Nevill was re-elected speaker. The gov- 
ernor's address was delivered three days after the opening 
of the session. 

Although he had represented the condition of the province 
to King George, Governor Belcher hoped the assembly 



145] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 145 

might yet take action that they might not suffer severely 
for their misconduct/ An empty treasury, nO' support hav- 
ing been granted at the previous sitting, testified to- the 
financial needs of the government. Harmony was recom- 
mended, that the session might be brief. With the consid- 
eration of the quotas act and the support bill, harmony van- 
ished. An attempt to pass the former measure was a repe- 
tition of the quarrel of the last session. The council 
amended the act as before; the assembly refused a confer- 
ence, and each house accused the other of obstructing the 
desired legislation.^ 

The council's efforts to amend the bill for the support of 
government also resulted disastrously. But more than the 
control of the purse was involved in this particular sup- 
port act. According to the council, provision not only for 
the payment of the colonial agent in England, but for his 
appointment also, was made in this bill.^ As long as the 
assembly denied the right of the council to amend a money 
bill, the council's assent to this particular support act would 
have carried with it the implication that the lower house 
had the sole right to nominate the colonial agent. There- 
fore the council amended the bill, so as to overcome the ob- 
jectionable portions. The amended bill was rejected by 
the assembly, and the governor was notified that if the gov- 
ernment could be supported only by the sacrifice of the peo^ 
pie's privileges, the support would not be granted.* And it 
was not granted. 

An interesting reminder of Governor Morris's admin- 
istration was last considered at this session. The quarrels 
near the end of his administration had left the government 
unsupported from September 23, 1744, to his death in 1746. 

^N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 157- ^Ibid., p. 185 et seq. 

^Ibid., p. 196. 'Ibid., p. 205. 



146 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [146 

His widow petitioned the New Jersey assembly, in 1747,. 
for the salary arrears of the former governor and for the 
money that had been expended for house rent during that 
period.^ The house rent was allowed, but the salary was 
refused by a vote of 20 to 2.* 

The Morris executors having petitioned the lords of 
trade to act in their favor, Belcher was ordered to require 
of the assembly the payment of the arrears.^ In a message 
of October 5, 1749, the governor recommended the subject 
to the consideration of the representatives. On October 
17th the assembly answered the governor's message.* Their 
reply was a review of the grievances which they had come 
to cherish against their departed governor. His abuse of 
the powers of government was boldly proclaimed. It was 
claimed that none in the colony, save those personally inter- 
ested, favored considering this a just debt. By a vote of 
19 to I the house resolved that no just debt was due to 
Morris.^ 

The council was convinced that no further application on 
the part of the governor would alter the decision of the 
house, and advised him accordingly.® Belcher wrote to 
the lords of trade of the refusal of the assembly. '^ The repre- 
sentatives themselves sent a memorial to the lords stating 
that the governor lost his salary only because of his ob- 
stinacy in not accepting it as the assembly chose to grant 
it.* Although the lords of trade thought this conduct was 

^ Assembly Journal, Nov. 30, 1787. 

"^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 17, 1747. The negative votes were cast to 
Nevill and Kearney. 

*A^. J. A., vol. vii, p. 173. * Ibid., p. 335. 

^ Assembly Journal, Oct. 4, 1749. Dr. Johnston voted negatively. 

•iV. J. A., vol. vii, p. 343. ''Ibid., p. 363. 

"^ Assembly Journal, Oct. 11, 1749. 



147] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 147 

" indecent and disrespectfull to His Majesty," with which 
sentiments Belcher felt called upon to agree, the assembly 
never paid the bill/ The last that is heard of the affair is 
Chief Justice Morris's petition to the lords of trade, in 
May, 1750. to grant relief for the unpaid arrears.^ 

The assembly had requested a dismissal at the same time 
that the governor had been apprized of the failure of the 
support act. On October 20th the legislature was prorogued 
to meet at Burlington on the last day of the next month. 

It was the thirteenth of the following February, how- 
ever, before the legislature was again convened. The gov- 
ernor's brief message deplored the strife and contention of 
the last session, urged that the legislature join with the gov- 
ernor to suppress the tumults, and reminded them " that the 
Body Politic can no more subsist without Proper Provision 
for its Support, than the Body Natural can live without 
what is necessary to continue it in being ".^ 

Whatever strife and contention there had been in the 
previous session resulted, so the assembly told the governor 
on February 22d, from the attempts of the council to in- 
fringe upon the liberties of the lower house.* As the cases 
of several rioters were under prosecution, the assembly was 
not disposed to take any action in connection with the land 
troubles. The persistence of the council in clinging to the 
false supposition that they could alter a money bill ac- 
counted for the starvation of the body politic, was the retort 
of the representatives to the governor. 

Nor was the empty treasury replenished at this time. 
For the fifth successive session a bill to settle the quotas 
was passed by the house, and amended by the council, only 

^ Belcher Papers, Feb. i, 1750. 

^ N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 401. ^ Ibtd., vol. xvi, p. 210. 

* Ibid., p. 215. 



148 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [148 

to be rejected by the house. The assembly was effectually 
discouraged from attempting any further legislation and 
asked for an adjournment. Regretting the necessity of such 
a course, Belcher adjourned the legislature on February 
27th.' 

A short but unsuccessful session was held at Perth 
Amboy from September 20 to October 8, 1750. Belcher's 
speech on the 24th of September had repeated the plea for 
the support of government.^ The dutiful assembly was 
aware of the evil consequences of an unsupported govern- 
ment, but had repeatedly tried to fill the treasury." They 
promised to try again, but met with no better success. The 
only act passed at this session was for the purpose of natur- 
alizing five persons.* 

The case of five Burlington county justices was an added 
irritant at this time.^ Robert Smith, Joseph Scattergood, 
Revell Elton, Thomas Shinn and Nathaniel Thomas had 
raised money without the authority of a majority of the 
proper freeholders. Elton, Thomas and Shinn, when ex- 
amined by the lower house, promised tO' reform, paid their 
fees, and were dismissed. Smith and Scattergood did not 
satisfy the assembly as to their future conduct and the gov- 
ernor was asked to remove them. The twO' unbending 
justices, having even refused to pay the fees to the assem- 
bly for having been summoned, were entrusted to the cus- 
tody of the sergeant-at-arms.^ 

The governor asked the council for advice regarding the 
removal of Smith and Scattergood. On March i, 1750, 
the upper house declared that the assembly had assumed un- 

' Assembly Journal, Feb. 27, 1750. '* Ibid., Sept. 24, 1750. 

* Ibid., Oct. 3, 1750. 

*Allinson, op. cit., p. 189. ^A^. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 221. 

^ Assembly Journal, Feb. 26, 1750. 



149] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 149 

warrantable authority in censuring, imprisoning and tax- 
ing the justices.^ The representatives were accused of at- 
tempting to seize power which was lodged in the hands of 
the governor, council and assembly. To' continue the jus- 
tices in office was the advice given to^ the governor, who 
acted accordingly. 

This decision was announced to the assembly in a mes- 
sage on October 8, 1750.^ The only reason given by the 
governor for not removing them was that a royal order 
prevented the removal of a justice without the consent of 
the council. It might be implied, from the wording of the 
message, that Belcher would not have continued Smith and 
Scattergood in office, had it been prudent to ignore the ad- 
vice of the council. To encourage such an implication might 
have been intentional, as it would certainly lessen any pos- 
sible odium which the nature of the ruling itself might 
have brought to the governor. It is not evident what 
Belcher's personal attitude toward these justices was. 

The fifth and last session of the seventeenth assembly 
convened at Burlington on January 24th. The tardy ar- 
rival of the councillors delayed the opening speech of the 
governor until January 29th. ^ Prudent measures for over- 
coming the recent obstacles to the support of governir^ent 
were advised. The king wished a map of the province, 
which the governor believed should be promptly prepared 
and sent tO' England. Clinton's request that New Jersey 
should become a party to an Indian conference at Albany 
in June, 1751, was seconded by Belcher, who volunteered 
to act as a commissioner. 

Before the session was far spent the assembly obtained 

^ N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 237. 
^Assembly Journal, Oct. 8, 1750. 
^ N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 240. 



150 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [150 

a favorable opportunity to attack the council by opposing a 
sheriff befriended by the upper house. Complaints of alleged 
maltreatment were made by Joseph Bonney against John 
Riddle, sheriff of Somerset County. The assembly directed 
their attack against councillor Leonard in particular, who 
was accused of having qualified the sheriff before proper 
oaths were taken and without the payment of proper sure- 
ties.^ The assembly passed grave resolutions against such 
irregularities, and petitioned the governor for redress. 
Leonard, however, denied all the allegations made against 
him. The council refused to censure a fellow-member by 
advising the removal of Sheriff Riddle, and Belcher notified 
the house that the officer could not be deprived of his 
ofiice.^ 

The session was occupied chiefly with the dispute over 
the quotas act, which developed even more acumen and 
temper than had been formerly displayed. The councillors 
attempted to pose as the champions of the poor against the 
rich, a rather anomalous attitude.^ They feared that the as- 
sembly proposed to tax the poor who lived on poor lands, 
as much as the rich who lived on good lands. Such rank 
injustice could not be tolerated by the council! It is safe 
to assume that it certainly would not have been suggested, 
much less supported, by the assembly. To the lower house, 
the opposition to the quotas act was due less to the philan- 
thropic solicitude of the councillors for the poor, than to 
the exemption of their large estates from taxation.* 

Long messages and ponderous resolves passed between 
the houses, but neither party could bring conviction to the 
mind of the other.'' Meanwhile the assembly had addressed 
the governor, on February 15th, to the effect that, as long as 

^ Assembly Journal, Feb. 9, 1751. *Ibid., Feb. 22, 1751. 

• A^. y. y^., vol. xvi, p. 252. * /bid., p. 254. ^ /bid.,p. 261, ei seg. 



T 5 1 ] LEGISLA TIVE HISTORY 1 5 1 

the council continued to amend the act for settling the 
quotas, the government would continue without support/ 
Notwithstanding Belchers appeal that the assembly recede 
somewhat from its position for the sake of the welfare of 
the province, his listeners were obdurate.'^ 

Friendly communications between the council and assem- 
bly were broken off, and the legislature was prorogued on 
February 22, 1751. Only one bill had been passed, the act 
to regulate the militia. Three days later Belcher issued a 
proclamation dissolving the General Assembly.^ The ne- 
glect to support the government and the open avowal on the 
part of the assembly that communication with the council 
had ended, made a new choice of representatives necessary. 
It was hoped, said the governor, that the new representa- 
tives would act dutifully and prudently in order to avert 
any possible resentment from the king for the non-support 
of his government in New Jersey. 

The dissolution and prospective election was a matter of 
more than local or ordinary interest. Brief pamphlets for 
and against the conduct of the assembly in the recent ses- 
sion were published in the New York and Philadelphia 
weeklies.* Novel, at least, was one in the form of a dia- 
logue between " Freeman ", a representative of twenty years 
continuous service in the New Jersey assembly, and " Love- 
truth ", one of his constituents. The former furnished 
" Lovetruth " with what was declared to be an unprejudiced 
and impartial account of the dispute in the legislature. It 
is reasonable to suppose that the publicity given in this way 
to many facts, otherwise less generally known, aided in se- 
curing the salutary results of the next session. The elec- 
tion resulted in the return of eleven new members to the 
assembly. 

'A''. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 259. *Ibid., p. 283. 

*Ibid., vol. xix, p. 30. * /bid., vol. xix, pp. 13, 34. 50. 



152 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [152 

On May 20, 1751, the legislature met at Perth Amboy. 
Charles Read, one of the new delegates from the city of 
Burlington and secretary of the province, was elected 
speaker. The session was brief, continuing only to June 
7th, but the quotas act was passed and the government was 
at length supported. 

The governor's speech was brief, asking simply for sup- 
port and suggesting the wisdom of following the practise 
of the House of Commons, by first voting the money for 
the officers of government and the payment of public debts, 
and then considering the ways and means for raising the 
funds/ Having passed the support bill, the assembly inti- 
mated to the governor that he could follow no better ex- 
ample than that of the king in redressing grievances, and 
would be glad if Belcher thought his power not so limited 
but that he might remove a justice without the consent of 
the council. The complaint of the assembly against the gov- 
ernor because of a too restrictive interpretation of his powers 
was unique indeed. 

The much-discussed bill for settling the quotas was passed 
as the result of a compromise. In the seven former attempts 
to pass this measure the council had fought for a tax 
levied upon the quality of the land, the assembly for a tax 
levied upon the quantity of the land held by any person. 
The bill that passed at this session contained a declaratory 
clause that the intent was to tax " Lands hereafter accord- 
ing tO' value in Quantity and Quality between limited sums 
tO' be hereafter fixed, and that all land Purchased from a 
larger .Survey or Patent, shall be Esteemed a Separate Tract, 
which being the proper business of a Taxation Bill, was not 
Explained by either of the said Seven Bills." " 

Following the passage of the act tO' settle the quotas no 

^N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 291. ^ Ibid., p. 309. 



153] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1 53 

difficulty was experienced with the support bill. Belcher 
enthusiastically wrote to Bedford that the new assembly was 
fine, settled two points contested for two years, and he be- 
lieved it presaged the recovery of peace and order in the 
province/ 

Unfortunately the governor's visions of peace and plenty 
did not materialize. The act of the preceding session had 
enabled the legislature to settle the quotas of the several 
counties, in order that taxes might be levied, but the first 
actual levy of taxes according to the revised schedule of 
quotas had yet tO' be made. Attention to this business was 
recommended tO' the assembly by the governor in his opening 
speech at the session in September, 175 1." 

By September 25th the lists of the taxable estates of the 
counties had been received by the assembly, so that the sup- 
port of government and levying the proper quotas upon the 
counties could be taken into consideration.^ One bill for 
both purposes was passed by the lower house and sent to 
the council. The act was amended by the council, chiefly 
because that house believed its preamble effectually invali- 
dated the declaratory clause added to the quotas bill of the 
last session.* The assembly refused to allow the council 
to alter the bill and would not agree tO' a conference. The 
fact that the bill would have supported the government for 
the unusual term of five years leads one tO' believe either 
that the assembly had slight hope of its enactment into law, 
or were wnlling to risk its passage in return for undoubted 
benefits to be obtained. 

The claim was now set up by the lower house to the right 
to deliver all support bills to the governor in person, in- 

^N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 598. '^Ibid., vol. xvi, p. 310. 

^ Assembly Journal, Sept. 25, 1751. 
*N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 342. 



154 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [154 

Stead of sending them to the council, as had been the custom/ 
Certain precedents from the minutes of the House of Com- 
mons and the legislature of New Jersey purporting to sub- 
stantiate this claim were given. The advantage of this plan 
was to give the governor an opportunity to peruse the sup- 
port bills, in cases where the council had refused to pass 
them. The governor, failing to be convinced of the value 
of the plan, refused to become a partner to the scheme. 

The support act was not passed, but some general legis- 
lation for the welfare of the colony received the governor's 
assent. The assembly was prorogued on October 23, 1751. 

The session which began at Perth Amboy on January 25, 
1752, allowed the legislature another opportunity to fill the 
treasury. Such a course was recommended by the gov- 
ernor, who hoped that the council and assembly would 
" become perfect Strangers, to any animosities, or Differ- 
ences ".^ Inasmuch as the council did not attempt to amend 
the bill, no difficulty arose. The question of the propriety 
of sending the support act directly to the governor was re- 
vived at this sitting, but by a vote of 13 to 5 it was resolved 
to adhere to the usual practice of sending it to the council. 
This was evidently a setback for the ardent spirits who were 
too prone to antagonize the council. 

At this session Joseph Bonney petitioned again for re- 
dness against Sheriff Riddle, claiming that the latter held 
his office illegally, in consequence of which his acts were 
void.^ In response to a similar complaint during the pre- 
vious session Governor Belcher had urged that a joint com- 
mittee of the two houses consider this case, which had been 

^ Assembly Journal, Oct. 22, 1751. 

^A'. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 353. 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 30, 1752. 



155] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1 55 

pending so long.^ An act for Bonney's relief had at that time 
been passed by the lower house, but failed to become a law, 
because the council amendments thereto were rejected.^ 
The governor's attitude, in October, 1751, was favorable to 
Bonney, but in February, 1752, he refused to order the 
prosecution of the Somerset County officials, said to have 
been responsible for Bonney's distress/ The unfortunate 
debtor continued to petition the assembly for relief as late 
as the summer of 1755, but his efforts seem to have been 
unavailing. 

The next sitting was occasioned by an additional instruc- 
tion which His Majesty had sent the governor requiring a 
revised edition of the provincial laws to be sent to Eng- 
land/ In addition, the message of December 18, 1752, 
mentioned that the support had expired and that " the Ris- 
ing of a Seditious Pack of Villains ", who broke open the 
Perth Amboy jail the previous April pointed clearly to the 
need of legislation to protect the jails. Belcher, upon the 
advice of his physician as well as that of the council, had 
called this session to meet at Elizabethtown. However 
much such a course might have conformed to the royal in- 
structions, the assembly did not regard it as necessary at this 
time and refused to proceed to business.^ The governor 
was told, however, that as the laws had just been collected 
at great expense," a circumstance of which the king could 
not have been aware when the additional instruction was 
issued, New Jersey should not be under the necessity of re- 
vising her laws. The house members were horrified at the 
breaking of the Amboy jail, but as the rescued prisoner, 

^ Assembly Journal, May 5, 1752. "^ Ibid., Oct. 4, 1752. 

^ Ibid., Feb. 7, 1752. *A^. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 391. ^Ibid., p. 394. 
"Nevill, Acts of the General Assembly, printed in 1752, were re- 
ferred to. 



156 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [156 

Simon Wickoff, had voluntarily returned, the need for new 
laws was obviated ! The wisdom of such reasoning is open 
to question. 

The governor prorogued the assembly on December 22d, 
when he replied to the message of the lower house.^ The 
farcical character of the assembly position regarding the 
Wickoff rescue and the need for safer jails did not pass un- 
noticed. Belcher professed surprise at the refusal to pro- 
ceed to business at Elizabethtown, and submitted the royal 
instruction upon the subject tO' the assembly. He hoped he 
could meet the legislature at the regular meeting-place in 
the spring. 

The fifth sitting of the eighteenth assembly began at Bur- 
lington on May 16, 1753. Owing to the tardy arrival of the 
councillors, the opening speech to the legislature was not 
delivered until a week later.^ Except to advise an inquiry 
into the state of the paper money, the recommendations 
made at Elizabethtown were repeated. The opinion of the 
assembly had not changed regarding the revisal of the laws, 
or the steps necessary to lessen the violence in the colony.* 
A support act was passed. 

The inquiry intO' the condition of the paper money was 
the most important question considered at this session. 
Responding to the governor's suggestion, a committee, con- 
sisting of Wood, Learning, and Spicer, prepared an elab- 
orate and able report upon the bills of credit. As a result 
of this report, a summary of which is given in a later chap- 
ter, it was resolved to petition the crown for permission to 
emit additional paper currency. The council refused to join 
in an address to the king for the purpose, but this did not 
deter the other house.* It was necessary to postpone further 

^ N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 396. ^Assembly Journal, May 2Z, 1753. 

^N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 4 [2. *Ibid., p. 407. 



157] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1 57 

action upon the subject of paper money until the fate of the 
petition should be known. 

Another attempt to force the removal of a sheriff was 
made by the assembly at this time. It was claimed that 
Enoch Anderson's appointment as sheriff of Hunterdon 
County was a grievance, because he had not been a resident 
of that county for three years. ^ Declaring that to ex- 
pound the law was a duty of the judges, and not of a single 
branch of the government, Belcher refused tO' take any 
action. The governor's reply was pronounced unsatis-- 
factory, and the assembly promised to answer it properly at 
the next sitting.^ During the interval Anderson having 
been removed, the assemblymen soothed their rufiied feel- 
ings by the mere declaration of their right to incjuire into 
and complain of a breach of the law, if not tO' expound the 
law.^ 

There were eleven bills passed at this session, among 
them, besides the support act, acts to regulate the militia, 
to erect Sussex County, tO' redeem the outstanding bills of 
credit made current for the Third Intercolonial War, and 
to continue the act to prevent actions under £15 being 
brought into the Supreme Court.* The session was pro- 
rogued on June 8th. 

The encroachments of the French became so bold in 1754 
that the colonies most concerned sought to protect them- 
selves and called upon their neighbors. To maintain the 
fidelity of the Six Nations was of great importance to the 
English interest. The famous Albany Conference of 1754 
was planned, and New Jersey with the other colonies was 
urged tO' send delegates. The receipt of several important 
messages upon this head convinced Belcher of the necessity 

^Assembly Journal, June 6, 1753. "^ Ibid., June 8, 1753. 

^ Ibid., June 12, 1753. *Allinson, op. cit., p. 193. 



158 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [158 

of calling the legislature. His ill health required the meet- 
ing to be held at Elizabethtown, in April, 1754. The coun- 
cil and assembly were asked to assist the other colonies in 
the important crisis, and to consider whatever else the public 
needs demanded/ 

The assembly was still unwilling to transact business 
away from the accustomed places, and sent a committee of 
two members to ask the governor to be dismissed to Amboy, 
when he could meet the legislature there. Such messages 
were usually sent through the council, so that Belcher cen- 
sured the house for their present method of address, de- 
claring it unprecedented and disrespectful.^ He intimated 
a lack of tenderness and compassion in their unwillingness 
to continue the session at Elizabethtown. Despite his ap- 
parent displeasure the assembly was prorogued to Perth 
Amboy, where it met on June 3, 1754. With more intem- 
perate language than had ever before been used by New 
Jersey assemblies to Belcher, the lower house protested 
against being considered guilty of disrespect and ingrati- 
tude.^ The support bill was passed, but no provision was 
made for sending commissioners to Albany or aiding the 
forces in Virginia. As a result, Belcher regarded it as nec- 
essary to dissolve the eighteenth assembly.* The dissolu- 
tion was ordered on June 21, 1754. 

A cheerful activity in providing men and money against 
the French was the main subject recommended to the legis- 
lature by Belcher, on October i, 1754.^ The election had 
resulted in the return of less than half of the old members. 
Robert Lawrence was chosen speaker. This assembly re- 
solved by a vote of 20 to 2 to grant aid to the king against 

'A^. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 455. 

* Assembly Journal, April 29, 1754. 

^ N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 462. * Ibid., p. 474. '■Ibid., p. 487. 



159] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1 59 

the French/ £10.000 of a £70,000 paper money emission, 
for which the house would petition was to to be set aside for 
this purpose.^ The governor had received authority to as- 
sent to a bill emitting paper money, provided a suspending 
clause was added. The legislature drafted a £70,000 act, 
ignoring the legal tender condition, however, and petitioned 
the king for the royal assent. This was ineffectual and the 
bill was disallowed.^ Thus the king's service did not re- 
ceive the benefit of the seventh part of the expected emission. 

The business of the second session of the nineteenth as- 
sembly, which continued at Elizabethtown from February 
24th to March 3d, was chiefly regarding military affairs. 
Only the governor's health and the necessity of the busi- 
ness justified the assembly in altering the custom of alter- 
nate sittings.* Two acts were passed at the session, to pre- 
vent the exportation of provisions to the enemy, and to pro- 
vide for the British regulars during their march through 
the colony." At the last session the governor had strongly 
recommended the revision of the militia act, especially in 
respect to the number of musters. The assembly at that 
time regarded it as sufficient, but Belcher repeated the 
recommendation and elaborated his views at this session.^ 
Consideration was again given to the militia bill, but the 
assembly contined to believe that its provisions answered 
the design intended by it.^ 

The vigor with which the Fourth Intercolonial War now 
began to be prosecuted necessitated frequent meetings of the 

^Assembly Journal, Oct. 8, 1754. The negative votes w^ere cast by 
Learning and Spicer. 
"^Ibid., Oct. II, 1754. 
'A^. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. loi. 

* Assembly Journal, Feb. 24, 1755. 'AUinson, op. cit., p. 203. 

•A'. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 517. ''Ibid., p. 524. 



l6o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [i6o 

legislature. From this time until Belcher's death all the 
sessions were held at Eilizabethtown, fifteen consecutive ses- 
sions being held at that place, because of the feeble condi- 
tion of the governor's health. The legislature was called 
together in April, 1755, to raise men and money for the 
summer campaign of that year.^ 

After the defeat of Braddock, the assembly was called, 
in August, 1755, to increase the New Jersey quota of troops 
and amend the militia law.' Both of the recommendations 
were rejected, the vote on the latter being 18 to 2." It was 
the rejection of their petition to have the bills of credit upon 
their own terms that was guiding the attitude of the lower 
house in the war.'* The original quota of 500 troops was 
maintained, but beyond this the assembly refused tO' go. 
" We must be well Assured," said the assembly to the gov- 
ernor, on November 14, 1755, in response to his appeal 
for the defence of themselves and their neighbors, " the 
Occasion must be very Extraordinary to induce a Province, 
already loaded as this is, to add anything further".^ And 
in December, 1755, the assembly made provision for the 
defence of the frontiers, but again asked tO' be excused from 
augmenting the New Jersey forces outside of the colony.^ 
There was a slight change in the attitude of the assembly 
at the brief session in March, 1756. The legislature agreed 
tO' act in conjunction with New York and Pennsylvania 
against the Indians, pledging to support one-fifth of the 
troops raised for this purpose.'^ 

The houses were summoned again in May of that year, 

' Assembly Journal, April, 1755. 

^ N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 128. 

^ Assembly Journal, Aug. 12, 1755. 

*M J. A., vol. xvi, p. S43. ''Ibid., p. 562. 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 23, 1755. ''Ibid., Mar. 10, 1756. 



l6l] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY l6i 

and convened at Elizabethtown from May 20th to June 2d. 
During this short period much business was transacted. 
Emergency legislation in connection with the war was first 
passed, after which a vote was taken as to the propriety of 
entering upon the general public business there, or oifl 
requesting an adjournment to Perth Amboy. By a margin 
of one vote, it was decided to continue the sitting at Eliza- 
bethtown. The government was supported for one year, and 
several acts of the colony which would expire by their own 
limitation at the end of this session were continued.^ The 
unanimity and dispatch with which the public business had 
been transacted resulted in an eminently profitable session. 

-A. five day session was held in July and a three day session 
in October, 1756, at neither of which were any laws passed. 
The frequent sittings of the legislature prompted the as- 
sembly to ask the governor to put them under the necessity 
of making the journey tO' Elizabethtown as infrequently 
as possible. The insinuation that he was inconveniencing 
the legislators unnecessarily brought a mild rebuke from 
Belcher.^ The October meeting had been called to enable 
the legislature to grant Lord Loudoun's request for a regi- 
ment from New Jersey.^ That time might be given to con- 
sider the matter, a recess was allowed until December 23d. 
The assembly refused to raise the troops until Loudoun's ex- 
act plan was prepared and made known to the legislature.* 

One thousand men was the quota which Loudoun wished 
from New Jersey. Half of this number was what the as- 
sembly resolved, on March 16, 1757, to raise, and despite 
the entreaties of the governor, and the personal appeal of 
the commander himself, it remained fixed in that determina- 

' Allinson, op. cit., p. 210. ^Assembly Journal, July 24, 1756. 

^ N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 62. 

*■ Assembly Journal, Dec. 23, 1756. 



l62 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [162 

tion/ The oposite point of view was consistently main- 
tained by Belcher, who continually criticized the assembly 
for needlessly limiting their endeavors. His opposition was 
not so assertive as to antagonze the legislature, conduct 
which was in accord with his general policy in New Jersey. 
The house would regularly complain at being the recipients 
of the governor's disapprobation only, and then proceed to 
grant the usual supply, regardless of the urgent requests 
for augmentation. 

Paper money was still the obstacle. Provision for the 
supply of the troops and necessaries was made by the emis- 
sion of bills of credit in accordance with the act of the reign 
of Anne. The governor could assent to no emission which 
was not to be redeemed within five years from the date 
within which the bills of the last preceding emission were re- 
deemable. When compliance had not been fully made with 
the quotas demanded, the assembly would protest that more 
would have been done, had the time for the redemption of 
the necessary money been extended.^ That strict obedience 
to the royal orders forbade the extension beyond the five- 
year limit, was the response of the governor. This per- 
sistent disagreement, because of the desire of the people to 
push the reckoning day for the expenses of the war as far 
from themselves as possible, caused the friction in the gov- 
ernment. 

During this period practically no general legislation was 
enacted, except the support act, which was regularly passed. 
The war so completely absorbed the attention of the people 
that other matters were postponed. Governor Belcher died 
on August 31, 1757, while the fifteenth session of the nine- 
teenth assembly was in progress. The administration there- 

^Assembly Jourttal, Mar. 16, 30, 1757. 
^ Ibid., June 2, 1757. 



163] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1 63 

upon devolved upon John Reading. During the last few- 
years of Belcher's administration the sessions had been so 
frequent that difficulty was often experienced in obtaining 
a quorum. In March, 1757, upon one day, Wetherill and 
Holmes were expelled, and Paxson, Clement and Hancock 
were reprimanded for absenting themselves without leave.*' 
This difficulty was doubtless aggravated because of the ap- 
parent feeling that the governor, cognizant of the deter- 
mined opinion of the assembly, nevertheless repeatedly sum- 
moned the legislature chiefly for the purpose of increasing 
the forces. 

After Belcher's death the assembly, upon advice of the 
council, adjourned from day to day until the acting gov- 
ernor was sworn into office. The lower house grew im- 
patient under the delay occasioned by the refusal of Reading 
to accept the office.^ This may not have been unwarranted, 
for the president did not take the oaths until September 
13th, following which the legislature was adjourned. 

Two sessions were held during Reading's incumbency in 
office. Feeble in health, the president was inclined to ad- 
journ the session to Trenton, but the assembly strenuously 
opposed such a course, determined to suspend no longer 
the treasured privilege of holding alternate sessions at the 
proper places.^ With few exceptions the acts passed per- 
tained to the conduct of the war. A more energetic and com- 
prehensive prosecution of the war in the colonies followed 
the elder Pitt's accession to power in England and the New 
Jersey assembly in April, 1758, doubled the usual number 
of volunteers, augmenting its regiment to one thousand ef- 
fective men.* This incitement to duty did not pass un- 

^ Assembly Journal, Mar, 31, 1757. 

'/did., Sept. 7, 1757- ^ /did., Oct. 18, 1757- 

* Allinson, op. cii., p. 216. 



t64 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [164 

noticed, however, in their message to the executive on April 

17. 1758.^ 

It had been evident that from the beginning of the Fourth 
Intercolonial War the interests and activities of the people 
of New Jersey, as with the other colonies also, were neces- 
sarily transferred beyond the confines of the province. To 
engage in offensive warfare against the French or to guard 
the provincial frontiers from the depredations of the In- 
dians required the sustained effort of the colony. Except 
for a momentary interval after the close of the French war, 
conditions continued to be such that the old causes of strife 
between governor and assembly, or council and assembly, 
disappeared. Details of the rapid eddy of events induced by 
the broadened field of activity and interest are to be con- 
sidered in subsequent chapters. The domestic concerns of 
the colony caused little difficulty in legislation, but for the 
sake of completeness, a survey should be given. 

Francis Bernard, the new royal governor, met the legis- 
lature for the first time at Burlington, on July 25, 1758. 
The usual congratulatory addresses were exchanged, and 
as the assembly had already found " Opportunity to form 
Rational Prepossessions " in his favor, the governor was 
voted £500 to defray his expenses in coming to this grateful 
people.^ The new governor appeared to be especially in- 
terested in frontier and Indian affairs. His services at the 
Easton Conference in October, 1758, were of value to the 
colony. During the first session of the legislature in his ad- 
ministration the act empowering the purchase of the Indian 
claims to land was passed.^ 

Only two other sessions of the legislature were held dur- 
ing his administration. The general public business was 

'A^. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 175. * Ibid., vol. xvii, p. 181. 

'Allinson, op. cit., p. 221. 



165] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 165 

transacted with unusual rapidity at the sitting from the 
eighth to the seventeenth of March, 1759. There was a 
sHght disagreement, however, regarding the selection of a 
speaker.' As Lawrence was indisposed, the governor 
recommended the election of a temporary speaker to act 
until Lawrence returned. The house disagreed and elected 
Samuel Nevill, as the regular speaker. In finally consenting 
to this choice, Bernard declared that it should not be made 
a precedent. At the sitting in 1759, and also in March, 
1760, one thousand volunteers for the war were raised. 

Bernard, transferred to the Massachusetts government, was 
succeeded in New Jersey by Thomas Boone. The new gov- 
ernor promised to guard the rights and privileges of the 
legislature from violation or infringement.^ Even had he 
not been so disposed, it is doubtful if he could have made 
headway by acting otherwise. When he told the assembly 
that their methods of raising money deviated from the prin- 
ciples of the constitution, which he urged the represen- 
tatives to consult and " yield to the Emotions of Gratitude," 
the retort was returned that those methods were doubtless 
capable of a better construction than first occurred to His 
Excellency.^ Nevertheless Boone succeeded in obtaining 
the first two-year support act passed since 1749, which fact 
he proudly related to the lords of trade.* 

It was the twenty-first session of the nineteenth assembly 
that began on October 29, 1760, and continued until Decem- 
ber 5th, being the longest held since September, 1751. 
Twenty-two acts were passed, including measures to pro- 
vide for the maintenance or construction of roads and public 
buildings, the continuance of acts about to expire, and sev- 

^ Assembly Jourftal, Mar. 8, 1759. ''Ibid., Oct. 30, 1760. 

^ Ibid., Nov. 21, 1760. 
*M /. A., vol. ix. p. 248. 



l66 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [i65 

eral private acts/ One of the most interesting of the meas- 
ures was for the preservation of the public records of the 
colony, an act which Governor Morris had urged years 
before. 

On the last day of the session, the assembly asked for a 
dissolution to enable their constituents to declare their choice 
at the polls. A similar request had been submitted to Bel- 
cher in March, 1757, but had been ignored.- Boone at this 
time promised to exercise his authority in regard to a disso- 
lution whenever the king's service demanded.^ Although 
his reply offered no direct encouragement, an election was 
held, and the twentieth assembly met for the first time on 
March 2y, 1761. Ten new members were returned to this 
house. 

The chief business at the sessions in March and July, 
1 76 1, was to provide for raising troops. Meanwhile Boone 
had received an appointment as governor of South Carolina, 
and Josiah Hardy superseded him in New Jersey in October, 
T761. 

The new governor of course came resolved to make the 
people of the province the objects of his care, and to pro- 
tect their sacred and inviolable privileges.* In an address 
the assemblymen naturally returned thanks for such favor- 
able sentiments, hoping likewise that Hardy's administration 
by its length would end the rotation of governors sent in 
recent years to New Jersey.^ The hope was expressed in 
vain, however, because his successor as governor was com- 
missioned within a year from the date of its expression. 
Only four brief sittings of the legislature were held during 
Hardy's regime, the chief business of which was to raise 

*Allinson, op. cit., p. 226. 

* Assembly Journal, Mar. 31, 1757. ^ Ibid., Dec. 5, 1760. 

^ N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 244. ^ Ibid., p. 252. 



1 67] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1 67 

provincial troops, and to provide garrisons for the British 
regulars. Hardy's administration was characterized by the 
assembly as " disinterested, Candid and benevolent." It will 
be remembered that he was removed by the royal authorities 
owing to a disagreement relative to the tenure of judges.^ 

It was almost three months to a day after his arrival in 
the colony when the newly-appointed royal governor, Will- 
iam Franklin, met the legislature. The happy and glorious 
end of the long war against the French afforded a splendid 
opportunity, he told them, for giving " earnest attention to 
the Arts of Peace." ^ The necessan.- general legislation was 
recommended to the attention of the council and assembly, 
as was also the conspicuous unanimity which had charac- 
terized the legislative sessions of the recent past. The 
reply of the houses was marked by the usual flattering plati- 
tudes. 

There were in general two chief reasons for the unanimity 
that had existed between the branches of the legislature in 
New Jersey during the five or six years preceding Franklin's 
accession. They were the united purpose in the war against 
the French, and the brief administrations of the governors 
during that period. In Franklin's administration the gap 
between himself and the people widened, just in propor- 
tion as did that between the mother countn,- and tiie colo- 
nies. Inasmuch as the details of this administration are 
more properly considered in later chapters, only the general 
character of the legislative sessions need be here mentioned. 

The twentieth assembly was not dissolved at Franklin's 
accession, no new election being held until 1769. This was 
consequently the longest assembly of the royal period in 
New Jersey, continuing from March, 1761. until May, 176S. 
Robert Ogden was elected speaker at the first sitting of the 

' .V. J. A., vol. xvii. p. 352. *Iind., vol. xvii. F.544- 



x68 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [i68 

assembly under Franklin, and continued in that position 
until his resignation in 1765, as a result of the opposition 
in Essex County because of his refusal to subscribe to the 
resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress in New York. 

The first serious difficulty between the governor and as- 
sembly resulted during the Stamp Act controversy, when 
the assembly in an extra-legal session held at Perth Amboy 
elected delegates to the general Stamp Act Congress above 
mentioned. The Stamp Act resolves passed in November, 
1765, by the New Jersey assembly widened this breach, and 
brought upon the assembly a learned tirade from their gov- 
ernor. The subsequent repeal of the obnoxious act brought 
a return of apparent harmony to the government. 

After Ogden's resignation, Cortlandt Skinner, of Perth 
Amboy, was elected speaker. The three sessions in 1766, 
1767 and 1768 were of signal success. Much general legis- 
lation was passed for the welfare of the province, and also 
special legislation for the supply of the royal troops. In 
the session of 1766 public improvements, such as the repair 
of roads and bridges, received special attention as a result 
of numerous petitions presented tO' the house upon such 
subjects.^ At this session twenty-two acts were passed. 
But this number was exceeded by one, in the session of 
1768, when, among others, bills for the septennial election 
of representatives, and for choosing representatives in 
Morris, Cumberland and Sussex Counties were enacted. 

The twenty-first assembly met on October 10, 1768. 
There were thirteen new members. No less than nine mem- 
bers of the former assembly had died, making necessary 
special elections from time to- time for members to serve 
during the unexpired terms. In only two cases, however, 
were such members re-elected to- the new assembly. Old 

'A^. J. A., vol. xvii, p, 453, note. 



169] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 169 

age rather than dissatisfaction with their representatives 
doubtless accounts for the large number of new members 
returned by the people.* This assembly continued until De- 
cember, 1 771. Skinner was speaker until his indisposition 
in October, 1770, when Stephen Crane was elected, con- 
tinuing as speaker until the election of the next and last as- 
sembly of the royal period. 

The business of the legislature was largely occupied dur- 
ing 1769 and 1770 with the investigation and legislation 
occasioned by the demonstrations against the lawyers in 
Essex and Monmouth Counties. The disallowance of the 
bill that had been passed for the emission of £100,000 in 
bills of credit marked the beginning of a protracted struggle 
on the part of the assembly to- force the royal assent to such 
an emission by refusing to grant funds, wherewith the bar- 
racks for the royal troops might be supplied. This contest 
seriously embarrassed legislation, and led to the dissolution 
of the assembly on December 21, 1771. The long contro- 
versy of this year elicited several long messages from the 
governor, and replies by the assembly, upon the financial 
circumstances of the colony. 

The membership of the twenty-second assembly was en- 
larged to 30 members by the new delegations from Morris, 
Cumberland and Sussex Counties. The attitude of the new 
assembly was no more favorable to the governor upon the 
questions that provoked a division than that of the preced- 
ing house had been. At the opening of the first sitting in 
August, 1772, Stephen Crane was again elected speaker, 
but Cortlandt Skinner succeeded him at the next session, 
which met on November 10, 1773. 

Legislation was interrupted from August, 1772, until 
early in 1774, because of the fruitless controversy regard- 

' A''. J. Hist. Soc. Proc, series i, vol. v, p. 2,2. 



170 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [170 

ing the responsibility of the East Jersey treasurer in con- 
nection with the robbery of his office. Messages, pages in 
length, passed between the governor and the assembly, until 
Treasurer Skinner's resignation brought about an accom- 
modation in the matter, which relieved the deadlock but 
did not settle the dispute. 

Governor Franklin's fidelity to his British superiors was 
not consonant with the growing estrangement between the 
colonists and the mother country. As late as November, 
1775, the assembly protested against independence, and 
there was an appearance of cordiality or courtesy between 
the governor and the house. On November 15, 1775, the 
fifth sitting of the twenty-second assembly began at Bur- 
lington. The act for the support of government, with seven 
other measures, was passed. After the public business had 
been transacted, on December 6th, " His Excellency was 
pleased to prorogue the General Assembly till Wednesday, 
the third day of January next, then to meet at Perth Am- 
boy." ^ But the royal provincial legislature never reas- 
sembled. 

* Assembly Journal, Dec. 6, 1775. 



CHAPTER VI 
The Proprietary System and the Land Troubles 

Adjustment of conflicting land claims was the most 
annoying and distracting feature of New Jersey history 
during the colonial period. In large part, that issue pre- 
cipitated the contests between the branches of government 
until the close of Governor Belcher's administration. The 
line of cleavage between the two rival factions, proprietary 
and anti-proprietary, was naturally aggravated, because 
frequently a majority of the council held large proprietary 
estates, while in the assembly opinion favored the people 
who claimed lands under counter-proprietary titles. Better 
to understand the land troubles during this period, it will 
be necessary briefly to consider the character of the pro- 
prietorship and review the early contests. The later dis- 
sensions grew out of, and had their inception in, the same 
general misunderstandings that characterized the early 
struggles. 

In the opening chapter, mention was made of the trans- 
fers by means of which title to the soil of East Jersey be- 
came vested in a board of twenty-four proprietors, and that 
of West Jersey came into possession of a much larger num- 
ber of owners. The fact that the governing power of the 
province after 1702 had no right or title to the soil, is the 
salient and distinctive feature of New Jersey, as distin- 
guished from other colonies. Governmental power was 
held by the king, and actively administered by the gover- 
171] 171 



172 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [172 

nor, council and assembly; the title to land was held by 
the proprietors of East and West Jersey, whose affairs 
were actively administered by two councils or boards, one 
for each division. Members of the proprietary boards 
were, as has been shown, frequently officers of the govern- 
ment or members of the legislature. That the personnel 
of the provincial council might in large part be made up 
of members of one or the other council of proprietors is 
apparent. It was this interaction of proprietary influence 
in the government of the colony that encouraged popular 
distrust. 

Proprietary ownership in East Jersey was much less 
democratic than in the sister division.^ The council was 
an aristocratic organization of wealthy landowners. Any 
of the twenty-four proprietors, or their proxies, who had 
retained one-quarter of his propriety was admitted to a 
seat in the council. Where the process of sub-division had 
left no one person with a fourth part, the holders of the 
lesser interests chose one person as their representative. 
The council examined the right to land titles, purchased 
land from the Indians, rented land to the colonists, and 
transacted such other business as properly came to their 
attention. 

The frequency of council meetings naturally depended 
upon the condition of proprietary affairs, although there 
were regularly two meetings yearly. Seven members con- 
stituted a quorum. A president was annually elected, usu- 
ally at a meeting held in March or April. In 1730 John 
Hamilton succeeded Lewis Morris as president, and was 
annually re-elected until his death. In 1748 Andrew John- 
ston was elected president, acting in that capacity until his 

'Tanner, op. cit., chs. i, iii, and xxvii. 



173] ^^^ PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 173 

death in 1762, after which James Parker was chosen. He 
was the last president during the colonial era. The import- 
ant office of surveyor general was held from 1716 to 1756 
by James Alexander. For forty years the resourceful abil- 
ity of this learned Scotchman was devoted with energy and 
zeal to further the interests of the proprietors.^ His pres- 
ence at council meetings appears to have been indispensable. 
On March 22, 1742, " Mr. Alexander being called away 
on extraordinary occasions, the council did not proceed 
on business." * William Alexander, Lord Stirling, became 
surveyor general after his father's death in 1756.^ His 
successor was John Rutherford, chosen in 1771. In 1738 
Lawrence Smyth was acting as register or secretary of the 
board of East Jersey proprietors. Ten years later he was 
succeeded in that office by John Smyth, who held the office 
until the Revolution, and carried the records to New York 
with him, upon his removal there.* In passing, it may be 
mentioned that the East Jersey proprietors maintained an 
agent at London to protect their interests at court. Fer- 
dinand John Paris, an able and influential London lawyer, 
was a staunch and constant defender of proprietary rights, 
when acting as agent for more than thirty years prior to 

I759-' 

Although the surrender of the right of government to 

the crown greatly decreased the influence of the board, its 

personnel continued to consist of men of rank in the prov- 

' See American Historical Magazine, Jan., 1906, p. 11. 

' Min. of Council of Prop. ofE. J. , Mar, 22, 1742. Upon Alexander's 
death, a eulogistic letter of condolence was sent to his widow, and 
spread upon the minutes of the board, June 17, 1756. 

^Min. ofCoun. of Prop, of E. J., June 17, 1756. 

^■N. J. A., vol. X, p. 420. 

^Ibid., vol. ix, p. 445; vol. vi, p. 424. 



174 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [174 

ince. Prominent among its members in 1738 were John 
Hamilton, James Alexander, Richard Ashfield, Andrew 
Johnston, Samuel Leonard, Lawrence Smyth, Fenwick 
Lyell, Joseph Murray, John Burnet and Michael Kearney, 
all of whom were active in the public life of the colony. 
The following- year Samuel Nevill began his association 
with the proprietors in America, and in August, 1742, Rob- 
ert Hunter Morris took his seat in the council, having suc- 
ceeded to the estate of Richard Ashfield.^ Elisha Parker 
appeared at the March meeting of 1745, and in later years 
James, his son, was closely identified with proprietary 
affairs. Between 1750 and 1760 Cortlandt Skinner, John 
Stevens, Dr. John Johnston, the Earl of Stirling and David 
Ogden, acting for the Penns, succeeded to membership. 
Before the Revolution came to interrupt the regular meet- 
ings of the board, Walter Rutherford, Oliver DeLancy 
and Henry Cuyler were counted as members. This mere 
catalogue of names prominent in New Jersey history is 
indicative of the degree of influence wielded by the pro- 
prietary interests. 

Li West Jersey the land was owned by a large number 
of persons." There were one hundred proprieties, and the 
holding of only a thirty-second part of a propriety was 
requisite for a voice in proprietary affairs. The council 
was a representative body, five members being annually 
chosen at Burlington and four at Gloucester. There was 
little or no complaint by the people against the landholders, 
for they were in large part the people, and had an effective 
voice in the conduct of affairs. Hence, whatever contests 
there were, were chiefly due to the conflicting interests of 

^ Min. of Court, of Prop, of E. J., Aug. 16, 1742. 
* Tanner, op. cit., chs. i, vi, and xxviii. 



175] '^^^ PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 1 75 

the proprietors themselves, and were within the proprie- 
tary body. 

Annually in May the council elected its own officers, a 
president, vice-president, and register. Except in the case of 
the surveyor general, who was usually chosen for successive 
terms of three years each, the offices changed hands fre- 
quently. No less than ten different men acted as president, 
eleven as vice-president, and seven as register between 1738 
and 1776. Some of the most active proprietors served 
terms in each office. James Alexander was surveyor gen- 
eral of both East and West Jersey until his death, but he did 
not take the same keen interest in the affairs of the latter di- 
vision which he devoted to the interests of the former. In 
1743 complaint was made against his residing out of the 
province, and a similar complaint in 1752 charged that his 
deputies were not under his control.^ Consequently William 
Alexander did not succeed his father as surveyor general in 
West Jersey, but Daniel Smith, of Burlington, was appointed 
to executive office. His conduct of the office gave general 
satisfaction, and resulted in his appointment for six succes- 
sive terms of three years each. In May, 1744, he asked 
relief from the cares of the surveyor generalship, and Rob- 
ert Smith, Jr., was elected.^ He was recommissioned in 
1777 for a second term of three years. 

It was the frequent complaint of the governors that 
West Jersey did not contain sufficient men with proper 
qualifications for their recommendation to the provincial 
council. Comparing the public services and activities of the 
East Jersey proprietors with the proprietary representatives 
in West Jersey, the balance is largely in favor of the for- 

'Min. of Coun. ot Prop, of E. J., Sept. 16, 1743; Feb. 18, 1752. 
^Min. of Coun. oi Prop, of W. J., May 3, 1774- 



176 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [176 

mer. The great number of Quakers in the western division 
accounts in part for this discrepancy. It is true also that 
some of the most eminent West Jersey proprietors were 
never elected to the proprietary council. Included among 
the prominent members of the board during this time were 
Daniel Coxe, John Reading, Thomas Wetherill, Revell 
Elton, John Mickle, John Ladd, Mahlon Stacy, Jacob Hew- 
lings, Peter Baynton, Robert Hartshorne, Ebenezer Miller, 
Thomas Rodman, John Hinchman, William and Abraham 
Hewlings, Samuel Clements and Daniel Ellis. A consid- 
erable number of these gentlemen served in the colonial 
assembly, and two or three were honored by appointments 
to the council of New Jersey. Of course, there were other 
West Jersey landowners, never elected to the proprietary 
council, who held positions of public trust. 

The question of ownership of two extensive tracts of land, 
designated as the Elizabethtown Purchase and the Mon- 
mouth Purchase, was the chief cause of the land troubles. 
These tracts comprised practically five counties of the pres- 
ent state, the Monmouth Purchase including the settle- 
ments of Middletown and Shrewsbury, and the Elizabeth- 
town Purchase the towns of Elizabethtown, Newark, Ber- 
gen, Woodbridge and Piscataway. At irregular intervals 
during the colonial life of New Jersey, after an apparent 
adjustment of claims, the vexatious disputes would again 
arise to plague the proprietors. From 1702 until 1738 
there was a period of comparative quiet, as regards the 
land disputes. But during the administration of Governor 
Morris unrest again became evident, and continued through- 
out almost the whole of Governor Belcher's long adminis- 
tration, assuming at times a very serious aspect. 

It will be remembered that in 1664 King Charles II had 
granted to his brother James, the Duke of York, the lands 



177] ^^^ PROPRIETARY SYSTEM ijj 

lying between the Connecticut River and Delaware Bav. 
Under the command of Colonel Richard Nicolls. a fleet 
was despatched by the Duke to take possession of the terri- 
tory and oust the Dutch. The expedition proved success- 
ful and Nicolls was the governor of this territory, which 
thus included New York and New Jersey. In September 
of that year some settlers from Jamaica, Long Island, ap- 
plied for permission to purchase land, which permission 
being granted by Nicolls, these settlers — " Bailey, Denton 
and Watson, their Associates, their Heirs and Executors " 
— by purchase obtained a deed to a tract of land from three 
Indian Sagamores. In the words of the indenture, the 
tract was bounded " on the south by a river commonly 
called the Raritan River, and on the east by the river which 
parts Staten Island and the Main, and to run northward 
up after Cull Bay till we come at the first river which sets 
westward out of the said Bay aforesaid, and to run west 
into the country twice the length as it is broad from the 
north to the south of the aforementioned bounds." ^ Bai- 
ley, Watson and their associates had this purchase confirmed 
by a patent from Nicolls, with the proviso that they should 
render a certain yearly rent to the Duke of York or his 
assigns, according to the customary rate of the country for 
new plantations. This grant, the so-called Elizabethtown 
Purchase, contained a tract of great extent, probably be- 
tween 400,000 and 500,000 acres. ^ 

In June, 1664, while the Nicolls fleet was still at sea. the 
Duke of York, evidently anticipating the successful outcome 
of the expedition, granted by deeds of lease and release to 
Berkeley and Carteret that part of his newly acquired terri- 

'M J. A., vol. i, p. 15. 

'Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, p. 36. 



178 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [178 

tory which we know as New Jersey. Of this grant, Nicolls 
was, of course, unaware when he confirmed the purchase 
of Bailey, Watson and associates, and indeed he probably 
was not informed of the transfer to Berl<:eley and Carteret 
until December of that year.^ 

Thus in these two grants, the one of Nicolls to Bailey 
and associates, and the other from the Duke of York to 
Berkeley and Carteret, there are two conflicting claims to 
the same tract of land. In this conflict of grants is found 
the source of those disturbances that for decades disturbed 
what might well otherwise have been a period of peace and 
quiet in New Jersey history. 

After New Jersey was deeded over to Berkeley and Car- 
teret, the lords proprietors commissioned Philip Carteret, a 
cousin of the proprietor, as their governor. According to 
the " Concessions and Agreements " issued by the propri- 
etors, lands were to be taken up only by warrant from the 
governor, and were to be patented by him. Quit rents 
were not required until March 25, 1670, after which 
they were to be paid annually, " a halfpenny of lawful 
money of England for everyone of the said acres." The 
arrival of Governor Carteret in America was not marked 
by any disquieting omens, premonitions that might possibly 
have been expected of the two conflicting interests which 
later would assert themselves so positively, and indeed in- 
dications point to the fact that the settlement was quietly 
made under the Concessions instead of under the Nicolls 
grants,^ for the fact is that a large majority of the people, 
sixty-five male inhabitants, swore fidelity to the lords pro- 
prietors' claims.^ Newark, Piscataway and Woodbridge 

^A''. Y. Colonial Documents, vol. iii, p. 105. 
* Tanner, op. cit., p. 68. 
^ N. J. A., i, p. 49. 



179] ^^^ PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 1 79 

were settled deliberately under the Concessions, and oppo- 
sition to the proprietors came as an after thought.^ 

In point of law, as to the legal ownership of the lands in 
question, the case rests clearly in favor of the proprietors. 
The emptiness of a claim based merely on Indian purchase 
was apparent even to the anti-proprietary settlers them- 
selves.^ But their position also regarding the Nicolls grants 
cannot be sustained. Those transfers of lands took place 
after the tracts had passed from James' ownership. By 
eminent lawyers the opinion was given that " The Dele- 
gated Power which Colonel Nicolls had, of making grants 
of the lands, could last no longer than his Master's interest, 
who gave him that power ; and the having or not having 
notice of the Duke's grant to the Lord Berkeley and Sir 
George Carteret makes no difference in the law, but the 
want of notice makes it great equity, that the present pro- 
prietors should confirm such grants to the people who will 
submit to the concessions and payment of the present pro- 
prietors common quit rents." ^ This right in equity the 
proprietors always respected, offering to confirm the grants 
made under the Indian purchase and the Nicolls patent, but 
at the same time justly claiming their right to the yearly 
rent, as prescribed by the concessions. 

The pinch first came with the advent of 1670 and the first 
demand for quit-rent, as authorized by the concessions and 
agreements. There was a general refusal on the part of 
the inhabitants to pay the rent, and Governor Carteret, 
helpless before determined opposition, leaving Captain Berry 
as his deputy, went to England to impress upon the author- 
ities the sad state of affairs which existed in New Jersey. 

'iV. J. Historical Society Proc, series ii, vol. i, pp. 161 et seq. 

'Tanner, op, cit., p. 60. 

^ Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 41. 



j8o the province of new jersey [i8o 

The result was decisive, and opposition melted before proc- 
lamations of the proprietors commanding obedience to 
Berry, and asserting the invalidity of claims held under the 
Nicolls patent. 

Shortly after came the Dutch re-occupation of New York, 
to be followed closely by the English reconquest. Subse- 
quent to this double change of ownership, which New York 
experienced between 1673 ^^^ 1674, the Duke of York re- 
conveyed East Jersey to Carteret. The patent which James 
obtained from the king after the resurrender of New York 
to the English was an absolutely new one, which according 
to English law annulled previous grants. Hence, in the 
same way the Duke's reconveyance to Carteret gave the latter 
a new and unquestioned title to his part of New Jersey, 
and would in point of law necessarily rob the Nicolls patent 
of any possible validity which might previously have been 
claimed for it. x\nd such was indeed the case, for, with a 
single exception, all of the original Elizabethtown associates 
obtained warrants for surveys under the proprietors, as 
was also quite generally the case in Newark and Piscataway. 

For a considerable period occasional mutterings of dis- 
content were heard, but the twenty-four proprietors, into 
whose hands East Jersey had now come, never relaxed in 
their opposition to any recognition of the Nicolls grants, 
and comparative quiet was maintained. This, however, was 
the lull before a formidable storm which, when its power 
was spent, was a chief cause of the surrender of the pro- 
prietary government to the crown. In 1693. when Jones 
ejected James Fullerton, a landholder under proprietary 
title, from his land, the ejectment suit of Jones vs. Fuller- 
ton followed, which in the Perth Amboy court resulted in 
a decision in favor of Fullerton.^ By an appeal to the 

'Hatfield, Hist, of Elisabeth, p. 242. 



l8l] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM l8l 

king in council Jones obtained a reversal of the decision. 
This decision was the match which kindled the smouldering 
embers of anti-proprietary discontent. The king was peti- 
tioned to grant relief from the proprietors, proprietary 
courts were overthrown, and scenes of violence were fre- 
quent. In the so-called Clinker Lot Division/ a great ex- 
tent of territory was surveyed and divided by the Elizabeth- 
town claimants in utter disregard of proprietary rights. 

Indeed the Clinker Lot Right men did not recognize the 
existence of such an inconvenient abstraction as proprietary 
rights. At this juncture, as has been said, mainly because 
of the inefficiency of the proprietary government, both the 
East Jersey and West Jersey proprietors transferred their 
powers of government to the crown, retaining unaltered 
their rights to the soil of the province. 

In the instructions of 1702 to Lord Cornbury, the first 
royal governor of the Jerseys, it was ordered that the right 
to the soil should be secured to the proprietors by the pas- 
sage of an act of the legislature.^ At the assembly's first 
session the so-called " Long Bill " was prepared for this 
purpose, and in part provided for the invalidation of claims 
to land based on the Nicolls patent. Cornbury, disgruntled 
at what he regarded as lack of financial support, prorogued 
the assembly before the passage of the " Long Bill," and 
this bright hope for a definite and final decision of the con- 
flicting interests was shattered. While Cornbury was sur- 
rounded by his inner circle of corrupt politicians, a Colonial 
Tweed Ring, the interests of the proprietors dwindled to a 
very low state. During his administration the way was 
paved for great difficulties to the proprietors by the ill- 
considered grants of the two large Ramapo and New Brit- 

* Tanner, op. cii., p. 79. * ^- J- -^•. vol- "> P- Si?- 



l82 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [182 

ain tracts. During Lieutenant Governor Ingoldsby's regime 
an ill-starred attempt to secure the right to the soil to the 
proprietors was made, but was practically smothered in an 
anti-proprietary committee of the assembly. 

Upon the succession of Governor Hunter, in 17 10, pro- 
prietary affairs began to take on a brighter hue. The new 
governor took the position' that property disputes should be 
settled, not by legislative action but by judicial decision.^ 
An excellent theory that was, and just also, but the con- 
ditions were too stoutly opposed to its successful and satis- 
factory adoption in practice. 

Nevertheless a test case was actually tried in the Supreme 
Court with the natural result, a proprietary victory, for the 
court was admittedly in the proprietors' favor. Numerous 
surveys were then made by the proprietors and the dissen- 
sions seemed in a fair way of settlement: but such a sup- 
position subsequently proved to be a delusion. Although, 
in 1725, a case, that of Vaughan vs. Woodruff, had been 
decided' against the Elizabethtown adherents, they were 
averse to any conclusive settlement. In 1731 several suits 
of ejectment were brought against them, the case of Lith- 
gow vs. Robinson standing as the test. The tables were 
again turned, the case being decided against the proprietary 
interests. Encouraged by this decision, the Elizabethtown 
associates began bold proceedings. Funds were collected 
by assessment with which to maintain their claims, prepar- 
ations were made for dividing lands not parceled out in the 
Clinker Lot survey, and in 1737 the associates themselves 
brought an action against one Vail, who held his land 
under proprietary title. 

This case was ultimately decided against the proprietors, 
but to offset the effect of the reversals in the cases of Lith- 

^ N. J. A., vol. xiii, p. 427. 



183J '^^^ PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 183 

gow VS. Robinson, and Jackson vs. Vail, the proprietors 
had met favorable decisions in other cases, resulting from 
ejectment proceedings brought by them against some of 
their opponents. 

Such was the early history of the Elizabethtovvn purchase 
up to this time when there had been certain decisions ren- 
dered, some in favor of the proprietors, others in favor of 
the anti-proprietary party. 

Little time need be spent in the consideration of the land 
troubles arising from the Monmouth Patent to 1738. This 
tract was granted in 1665 by patent from Governor Nicolls 
to William Goulding and others, who had before the arrival 
of the English expedition purchased the land from Indians. 
It included lands between the Raritan and " Sandy Point " 
and extending back into the interior for some distance.^ 

Three years from the date the patentees were to have 
settled one hundred families on the lands^ and for seven 
years they were to be free from rent.* When Governor 
Carteret arrived, the settlers located there refused to recog- 
nize the authority of the proprietary title over the lands. 
When the quit-rents were demanded in 1670 resolute re- 
sistance was offered, but an agreement was finally reached 
between Berkeley and Carteret and the Monmouth pur- 
chasers, according to which in return for the surrender of 
the claims under the Nicolls Patent the settlers were to 
have their land granted to them individually in accordance 
with the terms of the Concessions.^ This was more an 
apparent than real settlement, for the people of Middle- . 
town later showed their dissatisfaction, even professing 
exemption from the payment of quit-rents. 

'Tanner, op. cit., p. 61; Whitehead, '* East Jersey under the Pro- 
prietors,'^ p. 45. 
' Parker, N. J. Historical Society Proc, series ii, vol. iii, p. 18. 
* Tanner, op. cit., p. 63. 



l84 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [184 

The varying successes of their suits seemed to have tan- 
talized the Elizabethtown settlers beyond their powers of 
endurance, and they determined to put an end to the whole 
business with one fell swoop. To submit their case directly 
to the king was the determining stroke which they agreed 
upon. Mr. Fitch, a Norwalk lawyer, was engaged to draw 
up a petition to the crown. ^ After stating the early his- 
tory of the grant of New Jersey and the Nicolls patent, 
the petition asserts that Governor Carteret " was so far 
from insisting on the said Lord Berkeley's and Sir George 
Carteret's right to the lands purchased by your humble 
Petitioners' Ancestors " that he purchased Bailey's share.* 
In many suits, the petition continues, the petitioners have 
been successful, but by their continued ejectment suits the 
" would-be proprietors " reduced the inhabitants to distress. 
The governor, chief justice, judges, and even juries were 
interested against the petitioners, and hence there was no 
prospect for the distressed subjects except to be heard at 
" The Fountain of Justice under Your Majesty's Royal 
Care and Protection." ^ The king was asked to hear and 
determine the question, appoint disinterested commissions 
from the colonies to decide or grant some other relief. 
There were 309 names affixed to the petition. It was read 
in council July 19, 1744, and subsequently referred to the 
Lords of the Committee of Council for plantation affairs, 
and later to the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plan- 
tations, but beyond that nothing is known of it. 

The settlers who claimed lands in consequence of Indian 
purchase alone were as insistent in their opposition to the 
proprietors as were those who held title by virtue of the Nic- 
olls grants. No matter under what claim the disputed lands 

' Hatfield, op. cit., p. 366. 'A''. J. A., vol. vi, p. 209. 

^ Ibid., p. 206 et seq. 



185] ^^^ PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 185 

might have been held, the people usually made common 
cause against the proprietors and joined in acts of violence 
at about the same time. Because of an absence of authentic 
records to prove the sale, there was more opportunity for 
fraud where no claim except mere Indian purchase was set 
up. It does not follow, however, that all such claims were 
advanced fraudulently. The undisturbed enjoyment of 
property rights convinced many that the proprietors were 
making unjust encroachments when they did attempt to 
assert their authority. 

One of the directions which Berkeley and Carteret laid 
down for the governor, council and inhabitants of New 
Jersey in 1664 was, that " the land is to be purchased from 
time to time, as there shall be occasion by Governor and 
Council from the Indians, in the name of us the Lords Pro- 
prietors, and then every individual person is to reimburse 
us. at the same rate it was purchased." ^ Although this 
rule was observed for the most part, some persons con- 
tracted for parcels of land with the natives. In 1683 the 
General Assembly of East Jersey passed a law forbidding 
this practice.' By the act, those who made such agree- 
ments with the Indians without the license of the governor 
might be " prosecuted as seditious persons, and as breakers 
of the King's peace, and publick peace, and safety of this 
Province." In accordance with this act, proprietary gov- 
ernors issued licenses to settlers for the purchase of Indian 
lands, upon condition that such transactions conformed to 
the concessions of the lords proprietors and the laws of the 
province.^ 

In the instructions to Lord Cornbury, the first royal gov- 

* Learning and Spicer, Grants and Concessions, pp. 27, 54. 

^ Ibid., p. 273. 

^N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 339. 



1 86 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [i86 

ernor, he was forbidden to allow any persons except the 
proprietors or their agents to purchase lands from the In- 
dians. The first act of the legislature under the royal gov- 
ernment was " for regulating the Purchasing of Land from 
the Indians."^ It was provided that after December i, 
1703, no person could purchase land from the Indians ex- 
cept he had a right of propriety and obtained a license. 
For every purchase contrary to the act forty shillings per 
acre was to be forfeited. Unless the person obtained a 
grant from the proprietors within six months after the pub- 
lication of the act, improper purchases were declared void. 

The law was in favor of the proprietors and left no 
room for uncertainty as to the titles. Deeds to land, 
unless issued under the authority of the proprietors, were 
clearly void. According to the constitution of the colony, 
it mattered not whether the conveyances were " from some 
private foreign stroling Indians, or from such as lived on 
the Lands, and might have had some Pretensions to sell 
them;" or whether the purchases were "made for small 
or trifling Sums, or for such Considerations as were then 
usually given to the Indians." ^ Any such transactions 
were void. When active steps were taken by the propri- 
etors to assert their authority the colony was thrown into 
turmoil. 

During the administration of Governor Morris numerous 
ejectment suits were brought by proprietors in trespass 
cases. Some of the defendants in suits from 1741 to 1743 
were Joseph Moss, John Morris, Benjamin Crowell, Jere- 
miah Clarke, Barent Kiter, John Crain, Benjamin Man- 
ning, Wright Skinner, John Clawson and Isaiah Young- 
love. Verdicts for the plaintiffs were invariably rendered, 

' N. J. A., vol. ii, p. 517; Allinson, op. cit., p. i. 
* Ibid., vol. vi, p. 300. 



iSy] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 187 

in consequence of which the proprietors beheved their con- 
tentions substantiated/ In 1745 eighteen actions of eject- 
ment were still at issue. ^ 

The Elizabethtown associates complained against the 
juries before which the land suits had been tried. The 
plea was made that artifice and influence contrived to pre- 
vent trials before impartial juries. The defendants were 
" inclined to believe " that an alteration of Somerset and 
Morris Counties had resulted from the connivance of the 
proprietors.^ Middlesex, rather than Somerset or Morris, 
juries would have proved more satisfactory to the associ- 
ates. Chafing under the sting of supposedly unjust perse- 
cution, the people displayed a dangerous temper in the riots 
that followed. 

In 1745 serious difficulties arose on the part of the occu- 
pants of the Elizabethtown Purchase tract, where Newark 
was situated. On September 19, 1745, Samuel Baldwin, a 
member of a committee of Essex County, chosen to pro- 
tect the interests of the people in their disputes over land, 
was arrested for cutting logs on the so-called Van Gesin's 
tract. The proprietors alleged that his conduct violated a 
legislative enactment of 1713, which provided that any man 
cutting trees on lands not his legal property " should be 
fined twenty shillings." In a demonstration, which must 
have loomed before the little town of Newark as a danger- 
ous riot, a crowd of Baldwin's sympathizers broke open the 
county jail at Newark, where he was confined, and released 
him. Governor Morris thereupon sent a message to the 
assembly urging that the riotous condition of the province 
be earnestly considered, and that a militia act or other laws 

' Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, pp. 48-52. 

* Ibid., p. 52. 

^Answer to the Bill in Chancery, p. 35- 



l88 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [i88 

should be passed to prevent the spread of the disorders.^ 
To this suggestion the assembly replied on October 3d, by 
deploring the lawless riot at Newark, but expressed the 
opinion that existing laws were sufficient to bring their 
violators to justice.^ The governor obtained little satisfac- 
tion from the lower house, for that common cause of dis- 
sension, the pulling of the purse-strings, was at this time a 
bone of contention between them. Morris at least relieved 
his mind by retorting that even if the laws were sufficient 
to punish the rioters the militia act then in force could not 
quell such an uprising as pestered the colony, nor could the 
" Officers and Courts necessary to convict them attend that 
service — without salaries or some provision to defray the 
charge of prosecution, which are not provided, nor, as ap- 
pears, intended to be provided, by your house." ' 

His Excellency ordered the attorney general to prosecute 
any who had been active in the riot, and at the same time, 
with the advice of his council, directed the Essex County 
sherifif to be diligent in the apprehension of the disturbers 
of the peace and violators of the law, committing all such 
to any jail they thought most proper.* The diligence of the 
sheriff resulted in the arrest and commitment to the Newark 
jail of Robert Young, Thomas Sarjeant and Nehemiah 
Baldwin. But of these prisoners, Baldwin was boldly res- 
cued while being taken by the sheriff from the jail to the 
Supreme Court, and the other two were released from the 
jail by a crowd of rioters. Again the governor appealed 
to the legislature to take steps to prevent the defiance of 
government and contempt of laws, this time with more 
satisfactory results. The assembly evidently saw the light, 
for a bill for " Better Settling and Regulating the Militia " 

^N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 379. ^ Ibid., p. 250. 

^ Ibid., p. 264. *Ibid., p. 400. 



189] ^^^ PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 189 

was ordered to be brought in. Indeed the tone of the 
assembly was so patronizing as to arouse suspicion. 

Several publications now appeared which were designed 
to justify the acts and claims of the contending parties. A 
communication of the rioters, in February, 1746, upheld 
the questionable proceedings in Essex County on the ground 
that the proprietors threatened ejectment proceedings 
against all who would not subscribe to certain unreasonable 
demands. 

It was thus the exasperation of the people, that refused 
to contain itself longer, because their " Rights, Properties 
and Possessions " had been invaded by the proprietors. In 
a lengthy statement sent forth from a council meeting at 
Perth Amboy in March, 1746, the proprietors, after re- 
hearsing the history of the titles in dispute, pertinently re- 
marked that if deeds were taken based on any titles what- 
soever, except " In the Name of the Lords, Proprietors of 
East New Jersey," according to an act of 1683 such trans- 
actions were criminal,^ and by an act of 1703 were invalid 
unless confirmed by the general proprietors within six 
months from the date of the act. Responsibility for the 
confusion in the province was shifted to the rioters, who 
had " Set up sham deeds procured from strolling Indians 
for a few Bottles of Rum." A tract which went by the 
name of the Horseneck Purchase figured largely in the 
ejectment proceedings complained against by the people. 
James Alexander, Robert Hunter Morris and David Ogden 
were the three proprietors most heavily involved in this 
tract. According to the proprietary statement these men, 
with Ogden as negotiator, endeavored to have certain con- 
ciliatory propositions accepted by the people, but failed.* 

'For the Act of 1683, see N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 302. 
'A''. J. A., vol. vi, p. 302. 



igo THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [190 

Consequently ejectment proceedings were instituted, in any 
or all of which the issue might have been joined, an appeal 
to England taken, if so desired, and a settlement definitely 
obtained. The poor deluded people were urged by the pro- 
prietors " To flie to the Mercy of the Laws for the Expia- 
tion of their criminal riots and to the Mercy of the Owners 
of the Lands they have been pillaging." 

Two formal petitions, prepared by some of the rioters, 
were brought into the assembly and read on April 17, 1746.^ 
It was urged in these documents that the lower house 
should grant relief by passing an act to stay all processes 
against them until the pleasure of the king should be known. 
One petition claimed to be from inhabitants in the northern 
part of the colony ; the other from " eight persons chosen 
by a great number of the inhabitants of the northern part 
of this province, a committee to represent and act for them." 

On May 26, 1746, Samuel Nevill made an elaborate ar- 
gument before the assembly against the petitions.^ Para- 
graph by paragraph both petitions were considered by the 
speaker and answered. He concluded by moving that they 
be rejected, but that the governor " should extend His 
Majesty's mercy to those people by a General Pardon, 
Under Such Restrictions and upon Such Conditions as to 
his Excellency Shall Seem proper." When a vote was 
taken two days later, Nevill and Kearney, both East Jersey 
proprietors, were the only assemblymen who voted against 
sending the petitions to the governor and council, in ac- 
cordance with the prayer of the petitioners.^ The move- 
ment toward' an act of pardon at this time progressed no 
farther than the preparation of such a measure. Taken in 

^Assembly Journal, Apr. 17, 1746. 

^ N. J. A., vol. vi, p, 408. 

^ Assembly Journal, Apr. 28, 1746. 



191 ] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM xgi 

connection with the impossibihty of reaching an agree- 
ment between the council and assembly upon a measure to 
prevent future riots, this did not bode well for the peace of 
the province. 

In April, 1746, a communication was sent to the " House 
of Representatives " signed by seven rioters, reviewing 
Ogden's former proposal of a trial at law and professing 
their willingness to join in issue according to the proposal. 
A preference was stated that the action be brought against 
Francis Speirs, of the Horseneck Tract. The general pro- 
prietors agreed to bring an ejectment suit against Speirs 
and announced that their attorney would be at the next 
Supreme Court at Perth Amboy to sign the general rule 
for joining issue in the said action. Later the rioters com- 
plained that all the lawyers were engaged in their opponent's 
cause and desired the proprietors to release one of their 
attorneys that he might be engaged to appear for the 
prospective defendants. That the proprietors refused to do 
on the ground that all those connected with their side of the 
case had been in charge of their affairs for some years, that 
there were many other attorneys in New Jersey and New 
York not engaged by " fee or interest for the proprietors," 
and that the Supreme Court would require attorneys, if nec- 
essary, to serve the committee of the rioters.^ These pre- 
liminaries all came to naught, for none of the rioters made 
application to the Supreme Court for attorneys nor took 
any steps to have a trial on their claims. 

Governor Morris died on May 21, 1746, and when Presi- 
dent Hamilton, acting governor, met the assembly in June, 
he called their attention to the distressed condition of the 
province, the inefficiency of all methods of relief and urged 
them to take rigorous action, lest they sufifer the resentment 

•A'. J. A., vol. vi, p. 392. 



192 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [192 

of the king and Parliament. Later in the year, at President 
Hamilton's request/ Alexander and Morris wrote to the 
lords of trade complaining of the riots, and of the assem- 
bly's inactivity, prophesying too that unless quelled the dis- 
orders would spread and effect the dependence of the plan- 
tations.^ While this letter to England was tinted to exag- 
gerate the conditions, nevertheless it was true that the 
colony was not becoming quieted. On the first day of No- 
vember the assembly, having taken no action on the riots, 
asked to be dismissed, and had their request granted. 
Shortly after, the jail in Somerset County was robbed of a 
prisoner, and threats were made against Nevill, then a 
judge for Middlesex County. The only measure which the 
president could take was to issue a proclamation forbid- 
ding the colonists to join the rioters, or assemble with them. 
But disturbances were beginning in Morris County, where 
one Dalrymple with his family was unceremoniously ousted 
from property which he had held under title from the East 
Jersey proprietors.^ 

When the legislature met, in May, 1747. the president 
again exhorted the assembly to take measures to prevent 
riots and remedy the distracted state of the province, for 
the king would not allow his laws to be trampled under 
foot.* Upon the plea that this session had been called only 
for the purpose of raising troops, the lower house deter- 
mined to take prudent measures at the next session, if the 
rioting continued.^ 

The inactivity of the assembly was apparently interpreted 
as a consent to riot by the disturbing elements. Within 
a month from the adjournment of the legislature, one of the 

'President Hamilton was ill. 

*N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 419. ^ Ibid., p. 427. 

*■ Assembly Journal, May 6, 1747. ^Ibid., May 8, 1747. 



193] ^^^ PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 193 

most serious of the demonstrations occurred at Perth Am- 
boy in Middlesex County. A large number of armed men 
marched against the jail, and contrary to the warning of the 
sheriff forcibly opened it and released one Bainbridge, held 
under indictment for participation in the attack on the Som- 
erset County jail. The disturbances reduced even Chief 
Justice Robert Hunter Morris to pessimism, for, in July, 
1747, he wrote to James Alexander that, although the as- 
sembly was about to meet, he had no hopes of any effectual 
measures resulting, and that the Grand Jury at Amboy 
would hardly indict the rioters, much less hold them on a 
charge of high treason, the indictment which Judge Nevill 
had urged upon the jury to return. 

Possessors of lands in the disturbed counties confessed 
that they had joined others in perpetrating what they knew 
were acts contrary to the king's laws, but yet they peti- 
tioned the legislature for redress of grievances.^ In truth 
the outlook for the peace of the province was not encour- 
aging, for with no remedy in sight, " persons who had long 
holden under the proprietors were forcibly ejected; others 
compelled to take leases from landlords, whom they were 
not disposed to acknowledge; whilst those who had cour- 
age to stand out, were threatened with, and in many in- 
stances, received personal violence." Under such condi- 
tions was convened at Burlington, in August, 1747, the first 
session of the legislature to meet under Jonathan Belcher, 
the Massachusetts Puritan. 

The accession of Belcher had been regarded with great 
satisfaction by the disaffected persons in the colony, but so 
far as can be ascertained their joy was unavailing. As ap- 
pearances went, it was. however, not without foundation, 
because Belcher interested himself in the First Presbyterian 

^Robert H. Morris Papers, vol. ii, p. 2)2>- 



194 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [194 

Church of Elizabethtown, of which congregation many of 
the defendants against the proprietors were communicants,^ 

But the governor's first message to the legislature must 
have left a discouraging ring in the ears of the Elizabeth- 
town claimants. ■ A committee of the rioters sent a con- 
gratulatory message to Belcher soon after his arrival, ex- 
pressing the hope that under his wise administration the 
disorders which they regretted, would cease, and that the 
" Lord of Hosts " would " Arise for the help and succor 
of the oppressed poor and crushed needy ones." ^ The good 
Jonathan assured the rioters that his duty led him to sup- 
port the king's authority and punish " breakers of the public 
peace " but, with evident faith in the maxim that " soft 
words turn away wrath, but the wringing of the nose brings 
forth blood ", he promised them his protection '"in all things 
consistent with Reason and Justice." ^ In a second dutiful 
petition to the governor several of the distressed settlers 
frankly confessed that they had no intention or desire of 
sundering the bonds that held them to His Majesty's au- 
thority, but had acted only in defence of their own and their 
poor neighbors' rights, which were in danger of suffering 
great harm. 

In his first address to the legislature delivered in August, 
1747, Governor Belcher urged that all departments of the 
government unite in an endeavor to suppress the disorders 
and restore quiet.* To this address the council pledged its 
support, and the assembly acted in a manner which presaged 
and augured well for a harmonious administration under 
the new royal executive. The assembly notified the coun- 
cil that it had appointed a committee of nine to confer with 

' Hatfield, Elizabethtown, p. 372. 

'A^. J. A., vol. vii, p. 63. 

^ Ibid., p. 65. *Ibid., p. 21. 



195] ^^^ PROPRIETARY SYSTEM I95 

a committee of the council upon the subject as to the ways 
to suppress riots and disorders, meetings of the joint com- 
mittee to be held at the house of the Widow Hunloke in 
BurHngton.^ Much to the council's impatience the proposed 
meetings were deferred, various excuses being given by the 
assembly. On December loth, after the upper house had 
received news of a riot in Hunterdon County, it pressed 
upon the assembly the urgent need of meetings of the com- 
mittees.^ The assembly ultimately condescended and meet- 
ings were held. 

It had been rumored that a " tumultous procession " of 
rioters was about to take up the march to lay their grievances 
before the legislature. The joint committee recommended 
that each house pass resolutions discouraging any such 
demonstration. Resolutions were passed, pointing out that 
such procedure would be not only dangerous to the peace 
of the province, but would also be an infringement on the 
liberty of the legislature, inasmuch as the intended proces- 
sion was desired to awe and influence the council and as- 
sembly.^ In January, 1748, there was laid before the joint 
committee a statement of facts, prepared by the council 
committee, concerning the riots and the remedies attempted 
by the government to put an end to them. To what extent 
the work and influence of the joint committee was respon- 
sible for two acts which were now passed by the legisla- 
ture, designed to put an end to the disorders, it would be 
difficult to state. 

The first act was for " Suppressing and Preventing of 
Riots, Tumults and other disorders within this Colony." 
This measure had passed the second reading at the previous 
session, after which it was ordered printed for public per- 

'A^. J. A., vol. XV, p. 539. "^ Ibid., p. 553. 

^ Ibid., vol. vii, p. 559. 



196 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [196 

usal and its reconsideration postponed to the next meeting.^ 
At the session in February, 1748, it passed the three read- 
ings and received the governor's assent in remarkably quick 
time. The measure was modeled after the riot act of Great 
Britain, which declared it a felony " for twelve or more, 
tumultously assembled together, to refuse to disperse upon 
the requisition of the civil authority, by proclamation, in 
form set forth in the act." " Those refusing to disperse 
within an hour after the order were liable to suffer death. 
This act was to be read once at every session of the Supreme 
Court, Circuit Court and Court of Quarter Sessions in the 
province. It was to continue in force for five years. The 
other act, passed at the same time, provided for the pardon 
of " Persons guilty of the Insurrections, Riots, Tumults 
and other disorders, raised and committed in this Province." 
The measure recites that many are thus guilty, and as 
some had prayed the governor for relief, this free pardon 
was granted them. Justices of the Supreme Court or com- 
missioners appointed for the purpose, were to receive par- 
dons and administer the oaths to the penitent culprits. 

The mad rush for executive clemency which some had 
hoped for did not materialize, and it was not until the next 
August that any applied to take advantage of the act of 
grace, when nine rioters entered into bond and took the 
oaths.* AfTairs were in an unhappy state, and Governor 
Belcher, in a quandary, wrote to Chief Justice Kinsey of 
Pennsylvania for his assistance and advice in the difficult 
juncture.* The council advised the governor not to dis- 
solve the assembly until the rioters had accepted the act of 
pardon, and the governor acted accordingly. Some of the 

^ Assembly Journal , Apr. 24, 1746. "^ Ibid. 

*iV. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 4. 

^ Belcher Papers , Jan. 11, 1748. 



197] ^^^ PROPRIETARY SYSTEM igy 

prominent coimcilmen felt strongly that, should the assem- 
bly be dissolved and new elections be held, rioting would 
predominate at the elections and there would be returned to 
the assembly a large anti-proprietary majority. But that 
was but one horn of the dilemma. When this same assem- 
bly met at its next session, what should be done with the 
rioters who had not accepted the act of grace, and they were 
decidedly in the majority? James Alexander, the promi- 
nent councilman, took the ground that, once ignored, 
clemency could not be offered again. His solution natur- 
ally reverted to the necessity of strengthening the hands of 
government so that guilty persons could be not only taken, 
but kept and brought to justice. That something needed 
to be done to strengthen the " hands of government " was 
evident, for they now began to fight among themselves. 

The disturbances continued, new outbreaks occurring 
during November, 1748, in the vicinity of Newark and 
Perth Amboy.^ These called forth a memorial from the 
East Jersey proprietors to the governor asking him to inter- 
pose in support of the king's authority, and arguing that 
the refusal to accept the act of grace was a clear mark of 
an intention on the part of the culprits to throw off their 
dependence on the English crown. This prompted the gov- 
ernor to again lecture the legislature, the assembly in par- 
ticular, on the necessity of suppressing the " dreadful con- 
fusions ". The council's response was considerate, but the 
assembly insinuated that the laws were not fully executed, 
and said that if this defect was remedied, the laws still prov- 
ing to be inefficient, they would consider the matter at the 
next session.^ 

^ N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 178. 
"^Assembly Journal, Dec. 7, 1748. 



198 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [198 

This reply of the assembly afforded ample opportunity 
for a conflict between the houses, for the council imme- 
diately defended the executive officials of the colony, main- 
taining that more effectual enforcement of laws could be 
obtained only by added appropriations for the support of 
the government. Such an imputation upon the assembly's 
control of the purse-strings was resented and brought forth 
the resolution among others, " that this House have a right 
to enjoy their own sentiments, in all matters and things 
that shall come before them, without being accountable or 
censured by the Council for the same." ^ The council, 
convinced that the assembly was guilty of a brazen neglect 
of duty, urged the governor to join in laying the condition 
of the province before the king and his ministers. The 
governor signified his intention of trying one more ses- 
sion of the legislature before appealing to the king. At this 
juncture the unusual happened. The governor and council 
came into conflict ! After receiving notice from the coun- 
cil that it wished to give him advice. Governor Belcher 
proudly informed them that when he wanted their advice, 
he would ask for it. A few days later, December 22, 1748, 
the council communicated to Belcher the opinion that his 
stand regarding advice was wrong. Again the council 
pressed for immediate application to the king. 

Duty so strongly impressed the councilmen, that not- 
withstanding the governor's refusal to join with them, an 
address was sent to the king and also to the Duke of Bed- 
ford, then Secretary of State, urging that such measures be 
taken as should be thought best to secure peace in the 
])rovince.^ At about the same time, in December, 1748, 
the council of proprietors of East Jersey also sent a peti- 

* N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 64. 
^fbid., vol. iii, pp. 185-191. 



199] ^^^ PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 199 

tion to the king, asking his protection for their property at 
this time, when the colonial laws were unavailing and it was 
impossible to execute them. The importance of the matter 
was urged upon Ferdinand John Paris, the London agent 
of the East Jersey proprietors, by Alexander and Morris. 
Their plan was that Paris should persuade the Secretary 
of State or the Board of Trade to order Governor Belcher 
to call the assembly to action, and if it refused to act, to 
threaten the sending of troops for the restoration of order. 
Any hope the proprietors had of such strenuous action was 
punctured by Paris's letter to Alexander, stating that no 
more than a " strong instruction " from the king to Bel- 
cher to call the assembly could be expected. 

The suspicion with which the proprietors began to regard 
the governor became evident. A new assembly had been 
convened in February, 1749, but had taken no measures 
against the rioters, which fact, it was charged, was a vir- 
tual confirmation of their case. The proprietary agent, 
dutiful to his clients, promised to look with diligence for 
any possible complaints against Belcher, in order that the 
scale might be turned against him.^ But the imputations 
against the governor were somewhat shattered by his mes- 
sage to the lords of trade, sent on April 22, 1749. The as- 
sembly, he said, had no regard for what he directed, there 
was no hope that they would raise money to protect the 
jails and quell the disturbances, and consequently the king's 
special orders would be awaited with great expectancy. 
Notwithstanding this, Alexander and Morris sent to Paris 
some charges which could be used against the governor.* 
In justification of his action in not joining the council in 
their address to the king. Belcher himself wrote to the 
Duke of Bedford that he regarded it more for the king's 

'AT. J. A., vol. vii, p. 238. ^ Ibid., p. 251. 



200 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [200 

honor that action should be separate, basing his belief on 
his interpretation of the character of the colonial govern- 
ment. He renewed his request for special orders from the 
king. The lords of trade began their consideration of the 
conditions in New Jersey. 

Dated June i, 1750, the report of the Lords Commis- 
sioners for Trade and Plantations upon the condition of 
New Jersey was sent to the Lords of the Committee of 
Council.^ The report gave in detail the basis of the pro- 
prietary claims and a lengthy statement of the disorders in 
the province. After a review of the claims of the rioters 
the report, little sparing the feelings of the Elizabethtown 
and other claimants, characterized them as a " Set of Free- 
booters who enter upon any lands, and cut down and de- 
stroy the timber, tho' the lands have been ever so long 
granted to others under the King's title." 

It was the lords' opinion that the laws passed in New 
Jersey designed to check the disorders should be disallowed, 
in accordance with a report of the attorney general and 
solictor general. The rise and progress of the outbreaks 
were due principally to the weakness of the government, 
consequent upon the necessity of the governor's either obey- 
ing the popular will or being refused support.^ As to rem- 
edies, the report declared the most efficient would be to 
send a " sufficient military force under the direction of a 
commander to be appointed for that service." Or four com- 
panies from New York cowld be sent under the command 
of an authorized person, allowed to act independently by 
having a competent salary settled upon him at home. Or 
if it was believed that either of the above remedies would not 
be efficient, New Jersey might be re-united to the govern- 

^N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 466. "^ Ibid., p. 521. 



201 ] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 20I 

ment of New York according to the plan in vogue before 

1738. 

The Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council, as a 
result of the above report, in July, 1751, directed the at- 
torney general and solicitor general to prepare a draft of a 
commission to be issued for investigating the grievances 
of the king's New Jersey subjects/ The Lords Commis- 
sioners for Trade and Plantation were ordered to prepare 
the draft of an additional instruction to be sent to the gov- 
ernor of New Jersey. This instruction was to be drawn so 
as to include an expression of the king's displeasure with 
the assembly for its inactivity, a notification to the inhabi- 
tants that a commission had been ordered to inquire into 
their grievances, and a declaration that the king had in con- 
sideration '* the granting an Act of Indemnity to all those 
who shall appear to have merited the same," with the added 
injunction that the people behave themselves for the future. 

The commission intended for the investigation was pre- 
pared by the attorney general and solicitor general, and 
submitted to the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Coun- 
cil.^ It empowered the prospective investigators to make a 
full and impartial report upon New Jersey conditions. To 
this end, they were granted by the commission, as drawn, 
full power to receive necessary information, to examine 
witnesses and to send for persons, books, papers or records 
that might be useful. This tentative commission was re- 
ferred to the lords of trade, who, in reporting it to the 
committee of council, gave the opinion that, if it was exe- 
cuted, 

it must be by the appointment of such persons to be Commis- 
sioners as shall be men of known Prudence, Temper and 

^N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 322. '^Ibid., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 58. 



202 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [202 

Ability, that these Commissioners should be chosen out of 
some of the neighboring colonies or sent from hence, as your 
Lordships shall judge most proper, but we are inclined to 
think that persons sent from hence would be the least liable 
to suspicion of Interest, Prejudice or Partiality.^ 

Inasmuch, however, as the commission authorized only 
an inquiry into the grievances in New Jersey, upon which 
subject the lords of trade had already made an exhaustive 
report, it was not frankly recommended, and was never 
issued. While the plan of appointing a committee to probe 
New Jersey's affairs was under consideration, Belcher pro- 
posed to Lord Hardwicke three persons for the committee.^ 
They were De Lancey, chief justice of New York; Fitch, 
deputy governor of Connecticut; Saltonstall, first judge of 
Massachusetts Bay; all three recommended as gentlemen 
of capacity and integrity. 

The lords of trade viewed favorably, however, a sugges- 
tion of the attorney general and solicitor general that one 
of the disputed property cases be brought up for a final 
judicial determination, which when settled would serve as 
a rule for all other cases.^ An additional instruction con- 
formable to that idea was recommended, but never issued. 
This plausible theory of a guiding judicial decision had 
always worked miserably in practise. The difficulty was 
that both sides could point to many such decisions to prove 
their claims. The recommendation, if acted upon, would 
doubtless have proved insufficient. 

In the meantime, while the authorities at Whitehall were 
evolving ways and means for the reduction of the restless 

^ N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 90. 
^ Belcher Papers , Dec. 3, 1751. 
^N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 90. 



203] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 203 

Jerseymen, there was no abatement of that restlessness in 
the colony. The disturbers of the peace indeed continued 
to regard legislative apathy as a commission allowing- them 
to defy the law. The counties of Essex, Middlesex and 
Bergen particularly became the scenes of violence. Two 
men, Ball and Burwell, having been imprisoned, were res- 
cued, but later returned to confinement voluntarily and pe- 
titioned for speedy trial. The assembly urged the governor 
to issue a commission for holding a court of oyer and ter- 
miner in Essex County, but acting upon the council's ad- 
vice, he refused on the ground that lawful and impartial 
juries could not be obtained in the county of Essex.^ In 
September, 1749, the governor again appealed to the as- 
sembly to take action, but fruitlessly. The appeal was re- 
newed in February, 1750, after a riot at Horseneck, but 
elicited the response from the assembly that legal prosecu- 
tion was the only method to be pursued, and the disturb- 
ances might have been checked, if the governor had heeded 
the request for a commission of oyer and terminer in Essex 
County.^ 

After a brief respite from disturbances, there occurred 
in April, 1752, another jail-breaking and the release of a 
prisoner committed for high treason at Perth Amboy. Al- 
though the governor had issued his warrant that extra 
precautions be taken to hold the prisoner, one Wickoff, in 
confinement, he was spirited away before the extra precau- 
tions could be taken. The council, on being asked by the 
governor for advice, stated that inasmuch as orders might 
be expected from the home government at any time, they 
should be awaited.^ Belcher continued during the summer 

'A''. J. A., vol. vii, p. 402. 

* Assembly Journal, Feb. 21-27, I750- 

* N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 37g. 



204 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [204 

of 1752 patiently to ply the London authorities for orders. 
The council now despaired of any good coming from the 
assembly, told the governor it would be useless to have 
another session of the legislature to consider the state of 
the colony, and became content with the suggestion that the 
attorney general " should proceed according to the known 
laws of the land." 

When the assembly did meet in May, 1753, it listened to 
the regular exhortation that some action should be taken 
to bring the colony out of its difficulties. But after this 
session of the legislature the governor could write to the 
lords of trade merely the oft-repeated news that nothing 
had been done to check the riots, and make the oft-re- 
peated request that the king's orders be sent. 

Early in 1754 Hunterdon County became the scene of 
disorders, and Governor Belcher issued a proclamation 
commanding the magistrate to punish the guilty persons.^ 
One year later another disturbance occurred in the same 
county, and there followed the usual procedure — the chief 
executive's request for advice from the council, and the 
subsequent issue of a proclamation ordering the magistrates 
to be diligent and the sheriff to suppress the riots." 

By August, 1755, after more than half a century of 
gloomy land dissensions, the horizon began to clear, and 
there came a relief from the intermittent distractions. This 
fortunate turn in affairs was due particularly to the im- 
pending struggle with France and the development of a 
disposition on the part of the people to submit their land 
title cases to the regular course of judicial procedure. The 
Elizabethtown claimants filed their elaborate answer to the 
proprietary bill in chancery, and Essex County, the center 
of the agitation, was disposed to wait hopefully for the 

*iV. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 433. ^Ibid., p. 513, 



205] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 205 

results of that suit. In other counties, many former asso- 
ciates surrendered their claims to the proprietors. Not only 
were the people becoming weary of the profitless struggle, 
but they were obliged to turn their attention to the absorb- 
ing events of the Fourth Intercolonial War. As early as 
August, 1753, Belcher, doubtless encouraged by the less 
frequent occurrence of riots, had written to the lords of 
trade that the province was in a " better state of peace and 
tranquility," and that the proprietors should improve this 
excellent opportunity by bringing forward their actions of 
trespass and ejectment.^ 

Over a year passed before an answer from the lords of 
trade to the above letter reached New Jersey. This reply 
from London, which Belcher laid before the council in No- 
vember, 1754, advised that the governor use his influence 
in persuading the proprietors to bring their actions for 
trespass before the courts for adjudication.^ A council 
committee considered the matter and after six months had 
elapsed reported to the governor.^ It stated that after con- 
tinued offers on the part of the proprietors to the rioters' 
committee to join in an action, one Tompkins was entered 
as defendant in 1752, the case to be tried a year later before 
a Middlesex County jury, but delays had postponed the 
trial of the case. In the meantime, according to a report 
which came to the council committee, it was seen that the 
spirit of rioting was disappearing. 

In Essex County at least sixty rioters were indicted, con- 
fessed the indictments, submitted to the mercy of the court, 
were fined and ordered to good behavior for three years. 
They complied and paid the costs of prosecution. In Hun- 
terdon County even more auspicious omens were observed. 

^ N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 151. ^ Ibid., vol. xvi, p. 493. 

^ Ibid., p. 549. 



2o6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [206 

In the trial of an action of trespass before the Supreme 
Court at Burlington, the plaintiffs were able to set forth 
their case as so just and evident, that not only were the 
jury and bystanders convinced, but even the rioters settled 
upon the lands involved in the case, and the defendant's 
lawyer, who advised his clients " to contend no farther 
against so clear a title." ^ The light of the proprietary 
point of view dawned upon the wayward settlers of Mid- 
dlesex and Hunterdon Counties, but the majority of the 
people of Essex County had not yet, according to the pro- 
prietors, become " sensible of their errors." 

It must be borne in mind that the inhabitants of Middle- 
sex and Hunterdon Counties were not included in the origi- 
nal Elizabethtown Purchase. The determining factor in 
their outbreak had been the influence of the general restless 
conditions about them, or, as was so often mentioned in the 
letters and reports of that time, the disorders spread. 
Coupled with that was doubtless the hope of substantiating 
their questionable claims against those of the proprietors 
and in so doing, freeing themselves from the obligation of 
the quit-rents, which they had regarded with such hostility. 
But in Essex County, the seat of the Elizabethtown Pur- 
chase, the outcome was different. 

There the controversy came to an end, but not to a legal 
settlement. On April 13, 1745, there was filed with the 
clerk in chancery, Thomas Bartow, the Elizabethtown Bill 
in Chancery.^ The title to the bill ran as follows : 

A Bill in the Chancery of New Jersey, at the suit of John 
Earl of Stair and others, Proprietors of the Eastern Division 

'^ N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 551. 

'This Bill in Chancery is a rare document, as is also the answer 
thereto. Copies are in the New Jersey Historical Society Library. 



207] ^^^ PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 207 

of New Jersey; against Benjamin Bond and some other Per- 
sons of Elizabethtown, distinguished by the Name of the 
Ginker Lot Right Men. With three large Maps, done from 
Copper-Plates, to which is added; The Publication of the 
Council of Proprietors of East New Jersey, and Mr. Nevill's 
speeches to the General Assembly, concerning the Riots com- 
mitted in New Jersey, and the pretences of the Rioters, and 
their Seducers." 

The reader was likewise advised that " these Papers will 
give a better Light into the History and Constitution of 
New Jersey, than anything hitherto published, the matters 
whereof have been chiefly collected from Records." The 
document was published by subscription, printed by James 
Parker. Parker and Benjamin Franklin were to sell a few 
copies, the " Price bound and ]\Iaps coloured. Three Pounds; 
plain and stitcht only, Fifty Shillings, Proclamation 
Money." The bill was an exhaustive defence of the pro- 
prietary claims, signed by James Alexander and Joseph 
Murray, " of Council for the Complainants." ^ 

After the case of the plaintiffs had been fully set forth, 
the bill concluded, praying that the defendants be com- 
manded to appear on a certain day in " His Majesty's Court 
of Chancery of this Province, then and there to answer 
the Premises." The governor was asked to grant writs 
of injunction, commanding the defendants and confederates 
to commit no further " Waste or spoil upon the lands in 
question, by cutting of timber or otherwise howsoever, 
until your Excellency shall have given farther directions 
therein." ^ 

The committee of Elizabethtown engaged W^illiam Liv- 
ingston and William Smith, as their counsel, to prepare 
an answer to the proprietary document. This work, " An 

^Billin Chancery, p. 81, *Ibid., p. 81. 



2o8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [20S 

Answer to a Bill in the Chancery of New Jersey," was not 
completed until August, 1751, and was printed the follow- 
ing year by subscription. Affixed to the " Answer " are 
the signatures of 449 freeholders and inhabitants of Eliza- 
bethtown. A touch of sarcasm is apparent in the title to 
the reply. It purports to be 

An Answer to a Bill in the Chancery of New Jersey, at the 
suit of John Earl of Stair, and others, commonly called Pro- 
prietors, of the Eastern Division of New Jersey, against pjen- 
jamin Bond, and others, claiming under the original Propri- 
etors and Associates of Elizabethtown, to which is added ; 
Nothing either of the publications of the Council of Propri- 
etors of East New Jersey, or, of the Pretences of the Rioters, 
and their Seducers ; except so far as the persons, meant by 
Rioters, Pretend Title against the Parties to the above An- 
swer ; but a Great Deal of the Controversy, though much less 
of the History and Constitution of New Jersey, than the said 
Bill. 

The Bill in Chancery was submitted to Governor Morris, 
who had established a Court of Chancery and himself ex- 
ercised the office of chancellor. Morris's connections might 
naturally have inclined him toward the proprietary cause, 
had he passed a decision upon the case; but his death in 
1746, over five years before the answer was prepared, pre- 
vented that contingency. On the other hand, had the case 
been adjudicated before Belcher, his possible leaning toward 
the defendant's cause would have been a matter of suspi- 
cion on the part of many. For unknown reasons, it was 
not settled before Belcher. 

Some of the leading men connected with the suit died.^ 
The case dragged along and before a decision was ren- 

' Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, p. 372. 



209] ^^^ PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 209 

dered the strenuous events beginning in the late fifties in- 
terrupted its further progress. The raising of troops for 
the French War became the paramount question. Shortly 
after came the tense situation caused by the Stamp Act, 
from which time until the outbreak of the Revolution 
thought and energy were diverted into other channels than 
a suit in chancery over disputed land titles. During the 
war for independence there was a suspension of legal busi- 
ness, and after the colonies had gained their freedom and 
New Jersey had become a state, the suit was never again 
reopened. Hence this controversy which had been a thorn 
in the side of the province for almost a century, was never 
legally deu'dcd. 



CHAPTER VII 

Boundary Disputes 

Boundary lines were often subjects of dispute during 
colonial times. Before the wilderness was claimed for 
habitation, inexact bounds were not necessarily inconveni- 
ent, but with the increase in population the necessity for 
the determination of accurate and recognized boundaries 
became imperative. In New Jersey history, the northern 
boundary line was the cause of a long dispute with New 
York. This was the most important controversy of this 
nature, although not the only one. The ownership of 
Staten Island and the jurisdiction over the waters lying 
between New York and New Jersey were also matters of 
contention. Of interest to the two proprietary bodies was 
the fixation of the line between East and West Jersey. 

The Duke of York granted to Berkeley and Carteret 

All that Tract of land adjacent to New England and lying and 
being to the westward of Long Island and Manhitas Island 
and bounded on the east part by the maine sea and part by 
Hudson River and hath upon the west Delaware Bay or River 
and extendeth southward to the maine ocean as far as Cape 
May at the south of Delaware Bay and to the northward as 
far as ye northermost branch of the said Bay or River of 
Delaware which is in fourtie one degrees and fourtie minutes 
of lattitude and crosseth over thence in a straight line to ?Iud- 
son River in fourty one degrees of lattitude which said tract 
2IO [210 



2Il] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 211 

of land is hereafter to be called by the name or names of 
New Cesarea or New Jersey.^ 

This was entirely definite, except for the " Northermost 
Branch of the said Bay or River of Delaware which is in 
fourtie one degrees and fourtie minutes of lattitude." The 
determination of this spot caused a hundred-year contest. 

Early but fruitless attempts had been made to fix the. 
northern line.^ The disputed section in New Jersey be- 
longed to the proprietors, who naturally were most active 
in procuring a settlement. In 1686 occurred the first un- 
successful attempt to settle the boundary question. Delays 
ensued, and it was not until 17 19 that another concerted 
effort was made by the two colonies in this matter. In 
that year Governor Hunter issued a commission for deter- 
mining the boundary. Each legislature passed an act for 
the purpose of appointing commissioners to cooperate in 
running the line.^ An indenture was signed declaring the 
Fish-Kill to be the northernmost branch of the Delaware, 
but an unfortunate disagreement between the surveyors as 
to the point on the Hudson, rendered the whole affair 
abortive. 

Although a settlement was so nearly attained, almost 
thirty years elapsed before the controversy was again 
actively revived. Meanwhile that section of the colony was 
becoming peopled with great rapidity. It was for the 
greater convenience of the growing population that Morris 
County was established in 1740. This may have served to 
revive the troublesome question, for almost immediately 

'iV. J. A., vol. i, p. 12. 

*See Tanner, op. cit., p. 641 et seq.; Whitehead, Northern Boundary 
Line, N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc, vol. viii, p. 157. 
" Nevill, Acts of the General Assembly, p. yj. 



212 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [212 

the charge was made that its bounds extended beyond the 
confines of New Jersey/ The two counties in the disputed 
section were Morris County, New Jersey, and Orange 
County, New York. 

When civil ofBcers began to exercise authority in the 
newly-erected county, disorders inevitably ensued. Inhabi- 
tants near the supposed line denied the jurisdiction of the 
Jersey officials over them, and used violence upon persons 
in that vicinity who declared their lands were in New Jer- 
sey. The bravado of the Orange County men led them into 
such reckless conduct that frequent complaints against them 
were received by Governor Morris. On the other hand, 
the Jerseymen were not entirely innocent of seeking to gain 
an advantage, forcibly if necessary. Neither side was in- 
clined to be bullied, and there resulted a condition of tur- 
moil and violence, well calculated to show the necessity for 
a speedy settlement of the boundary line. The council 
unanimously advised the governor to urge the Morris 
County magistrates to avoid strife, preserve peace, and pro- 
tect the inhabitants from insult.^ There is no evidence that 
the magistrates were not disposed to follow such excellent 
advice, but in itself it was insufficient to correct the frontier 
difficulties. 

The border encroachments continued. In September, 
1 741, a joint committee of both proprietary boards in the 
province appealed to Governor Morris to use his influence 
in having the line run.^ After a thorough investigation 
the petitioners had become convinced that New Yorkers 
had overrun the line of that colony and were dispossessing 
many of the tenants of the Jersey proprietors from their 
lands. 

'A^. /. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 266. 

'* Ibid., vol. XV, p. 185. ^ Ibid., vol. vi, p. 138. 



213] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 213 

As this petition did not spur the governor to action, the 
East Jersey proprietors sent an address to Morris in June 
of the next year/ It was claimed that John Bayard of 
New York had started ejectment proceedings in an Orange 
County court against persons who lived seven miles south 
of where the true line should run." Morris was urged to 
write to the lieutenant governor of New York with a view 
to a settlement of the boundary question. Lieutenant Gov- 
ernor Clarke having been succeeded by George Clinton, as 
governor of New York, Morris addressed himself to the 
latter.^ To impress upon him the seriousness of the situa- 
tion, there were sent to Clinton copies of the petitions that 
had been received by the New Jersey executive. His aid 
in the premises was asked, especially to restrain the people 
in his government from engaging in hostile demonstrations 
upon the New Jersey frontier. The two governors carried 
on an active correspondence with one another, but the 
boundary line was not further mentioned. The New York 
governor's declared reason for his inactivity was that 
£3,000 had formerly been expended in New York for that 
purpose, and no settlement reached.* Clinton was particu- 
larly interested in French and Indian affairs, and then too 
the Third Intercolonial War began at this time to engage 
the activities of the colonists. 

Governor Clinton recognized the necessity of running 
the line, but shifted the responsibility of any action upon 
Chief Justice James De Lancey.'^ Robert Hunter Morris 
met De Lancey, and other New Yorkers concerned in the 
border lands on October 29, 1743, but the meeting broke 
up after " much talk to little purpose." " Endeavors to 

*A^. J. A., vol. vi, p. 144. '^ Ibid., p. 147. 

^ Ibid., p. 162. ^ Ibid., vol. vii, p. 152. 

^ Ibid., vol, vi, p. 168. ^ Ibid., p. 171, 



214 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [214 

rouse the officials or landowners of New York to action 
failed dismally. The East Jersey proprietors were per- 
suaded that only " by an Act of the General Assembly of 
this province to be approved by his Majesty for running the 
same line ex parte " would the desired end be gained.^ Gov- 
ernor Morris was urged to recommend such an act to the 
legislature at its next meeting. Morris's indisposition, how- 
ever, prevented the delivery of the formal address to both 
houses at this session. A bill to settle the New York and 
New Jersey line was introduced, but, as with other meas- 
ures, no agreement between the council and assembly was 
possible.^ Violent constitutional conflicts marked the 
course of legislation at this time, and it was almost certain 
that any line act, sponsored by East Jersey proprietors, 
would not receive favorable action in the assembly. 

In the winter of 1747- 1748 the assembly was at length 
prevailed upon to pass the bill for ascertaining the partition 
line. The council minutes show that James Alexander was 
in constant attendance during the legislative session of that 
year and presumably was one of the most influential of 
those who prevailed upon the lower house to pass the act.* 
It may be noted also, that this was the eminently satisfactory 
legislative session shortly after Belcher's arrival at which 
the assembly's pet bills were passed. This act had a clause 
suspending its operation until the royal pleasure was known.* 
By it commissioners were appointed for running the line, 
with the consent of New York, and according to the act 
of 1718.' 

' N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 218. 
"^ Assembly Journal, Nov., 1744. 
'A^ J. A., vol. vii, p. 119. 

* Allinson, op. cit., p. 172. Neither Nevill nor Allinson give the de- 
tails of this act. 
'' N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 217. 



2I5J BOUNDARY DISPUTES 215 

There was apprehension on the part of the East Jersey 
proprietors for the success of the partition act in England. 
Governor Belcher strongly urged the confirmation of the 
bill as tending greatly to promote the quiet and peace of 
the royal subjects, but the attitude of New York was 
ominous.^ For the first time in over a decade that colony 
had appointed an agent in London. The supposition was 
that this appointment was made chiefly with a view to op- 
posing the line act. On April 9, 1748, this suspicion seemed 
verified. A motion was made by Mr. Gale in the New York 
assembly that as 

an Act has been lately passed by the Legislature of the Prov- 
ince of New Jersey for settling the boundaries between that 
Province and this, which, in its consequences, may greatly affect 
the properties of many of the inhabitants of this colony, and 
tend to lessen and impair his Majesties Revenue Arising by 
Quit rents, I humbly move that Mr. Speaker may be directed 
to write to Mr. Charles, Agent for this colony in Great Brit- 
tain, to use his endeavors that the said act may not receive 
royal assent until this colony have an opportunity of making 
their objections to, and being heard against the said act.^ 

It was accordingly ordered that the speaker of the assem- 
bly should notify Charles to use his influence against the 
bill. 

Steps were taken by the New Jersey proprietors to assure 
the final success of the act. Robert Hunter Morris, Elisha 
Parker and James Alexander were a committee in charge 
of the boundary afifair. Proofs were sent to their agent in 
London which, it was expected, would obviate all the ob- 
jections that the New Yorkers might bring forth.^ Alex- 

^ Belcher Papers , April 22, 1748. 

'A'^. J. A., vol. vii, p. 120. *Ibid., p. 126. 



2i6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [216 

ander hoped that one hearing before the lords of trade 
would convince them of the propriety of the bill. The 
committee notified the speakers of the New York council 
and assembly of the passage of the act, delivering sundry 
papers to them/ Likewise an address was sent to Gov- 
ernor Clinton notifying him that the king would be urged 
to approve the boundary line act. He was asked to com- 
municate to the New Jersey committee any objections he 
might have to the measure, in order that such objections 
might be satisfactorily answered.^ 

The governor of New York undertook to explain his 
attitude in this matter to the royal authorities in a letter 
of October 7, 1748.^ It was his idea that as the lands along 
the line were granted to private persons for trivial quit 
rents, the settlement was only a matter of adjustment be- 
tween the interested parties in both provinces. As it did 
not appear to him " that the interest of the Crown or of 
this Province in General are any way concerned in the 
matter, but only the Pattentees of the lands along that 
line," the New York executive declined to bother the home 
officials with the controversy. 

New York freeholders living near the disputed region 
opposed the New Jersey line act, as they " found Sundry 
things set forth therein for facts and truths which they 
conceived to be otherwise." * The bid for royal favor made 
by the New York assembly in the resolution of April 9, 
1748, referred to above, was clever. To claim that running 
the partition line might lessen the king's quit rents was not 
a valid argument against settling the boundary difficulty. 
As a matter of fact, practically all the lands along the line 

'A^. J. A., vol. vii, p. 141. 

"^ Ibid., p. 142; Robert H. Morris Papers, vol. ii, p. 8. 

^ Ibid., p. 159. ^ R' H. Morris Papers, vol. ii, p. 36. 



217] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 217 

had been granted away by the crown, and it was imma- 
terial to the king where the line fell/ 

But whether just or not, the opposition of New York 
brought on an expensive and leisurely investigation in Eng- 
land. In both provinces the landholders wished the inves- 
tigation to be a public charge, but it was made so only in 
New York. The East Jersey proprietors were certain that 
the assembly would not contribute to the expense and did 
not press the matter.^ In New York there was opposition 
to saddling the debt upon the public. The opposition 
granted the necessity of determining the line, but insisted 
that those who were to reap the benefits should bear the 
burdens.^ A pamphlet discussion was provoked by the 
question. One gentleman of New York, signing himself 
" Tribunus Populi," asked if it was " reasonable and just, 
that those persons who have obtained enormous grants of 
two or three hundred thousand acres of land upon that line, 
at so small a Quit-Rent as a Beaver skin etc, should expect 
the public to pay for running a line to ascertain their 
bounds? " * Despite the strong opposition to such a course, 
the New York assembly voted in 1750 that the Jersey line 
act should be opposed at public expense. This result is 
said to have been due chiefly to the De Lancey influence.^ 

In due season the New Jersey bill reached England, and 
agent Paris received also the papers and data with which 
to defend the measure. On February 14, 1749, he sub- 
mitted a petition to the lords of trade in defense of the bill.® 
The history of the case was recited, including the last in- 
effectual attempt to come to an amicable agreement with 

*A^. J. A., vol. vii, p. 153. "^ Ibid., p. 262. ^ Ibid., p. 163. 

*I^. H. Morris Papers, vol. ii, p. 22. 
^Whitehead, Northern Boiatdary, p. 167. 
*iV. J. A., vol. vii, p. 229. 



2i8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [218 

New York. In conclusion the lords were asked to appoint 
a day for a hearing, that they might thereafter recommend 
the act to the king. There followed many delays, and 
month after month Paris was forced to notify his Ameri- 
can clients that the board had not yet considered the bill.^ 
Aside from the fact that the lords were occupied with other 
questions, the delays were in no small part occasioned by the 
conduct of Charles, the New York agent. He ever pressed 
for a postponement of the case on the ground that instruc- 
tions had not been sent to him by the New York assembly. 
On July 19, 1749 the privilege of one more postponement 
was granted for the benefit of Mr. Charles.^ The delay 
was to last only long enough for a letter to reach America 
and have an answer returned. Intercourse between the 
mother country and the colonies was slow at that time, but 
not to such an extreme as the delay that actually ensued. 
Many letters might have been exchanged between Charles 
and the New York assembly before the question was again 
revived. The next hearing was not held until June 7, 1753. 
It appears that agent Paris had slight hope for the suc- 
cess of the East Jersey proprietors in this affair. The 
whole thing was distasteful to him, yet he claimed to have 
labored as faithfully as if he " had liked the Cause." ' To 
James Alexander he wrote, " but I assure you, was this a 
matter recommended to me by A Person whom I had less 
regard for, no Pecuniary Reward whatsoever should drag 
me to it." The cause of this " heavy heart " on Paris's 
part was that the East Jersey proprietors were urging him 
to state " the case a little too tenderly and favourably for 
themselves." He feared that he would suffer ill-conse- 
quences from such a course of procedure. It was with evi- 

^ N. J. A., vol. vii, pp. 234, 240, 297. 

'Ibid., p. 300. ^Ibid., p. 300. 



219] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 219 

dent relief that Paris learned of the intended visit of Chief 
Justice Morris to England. " I shall every day look for Mr 
Ch: Justices arrival", he wrote on November 10, 1749.^ 
Morris had sailed from Newcastle, Delaware, about twelve 
days before that date. 

Whatever may have been the proprietary agent's personal 
feelings, he never wavered in the task before him. After 
the long period of apathy, Paris could finally report, on 
March 7, 1753, that a hearing of the case had been or- 
dered " on the first committee after Easter." ^ The request 
that a day be set for the consideration of the boundary act 
had been made by Paris on December 2, 1752.' 

After testimony had been taken on the boundary act, the 
opinion pronounced by the lords of trade was unfavorable 
to New Jersey.* The lords declared that if the boundary 
grants were doubtful recourse might be taken to one of 
two methods of settlement. Either all parties concerned 
might concur, or the regular channels of judicial procedure 
might be utilized. The latter method necessitated a com- 
mission from the crown under the great seal. The act under 
consideration was pronounced unwarrantable and ineffect- 
ual because it had not the concurrence of the other parties 
concerned. As former proceedings in this difficulty between 
New York and New Jersey were not warranted on the part 
of the crown, they were not binding upon the crown. Any 
determination of the boundary prejudicial to New York, 
according to the report, would affect the king's interest, in 
that he might be deprived of escheats and quit rents. How- 
ever meagre such rents might be, the essence of the ques- 

' N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 360. 
' J^. H. Morris Papers, vol. ii, p. 62. 
^Collections of N. J. Hist. Society, vol. v, p. 298. 
*A^. J. A., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 128. 



220 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [220 

tion was not altered. From this reasoning the conclusion 
was logically reached that Governor Hunter ought not to 
have issued his commission for running the line. It was 
declared impossible to recommend this line act for ap- 
proval, and the agents of the two provinces were ordered 
to attend the board meeting on July 4th. Later in the same 
month the lords of trade submitted their opinion to the king 
in a representation which declared the New Jersey line act 
not fit to receive the royal approbation.^ 

The industrious Paris made immediate preparations to 
oppose favorable action on the lords of trade's representa- 
tion, but was handicapped because of a lack of instructions 
and funds.^ A committee of the privy council, to which 
the king had referred the report, had the matter under ad- 
visement. Paris decided to adopt the former tactics of the 
New York agent and spar for a delay in the proceedings. 
On August 7, 1753, the case was held up until a petition 
could be prepared for the Jersey proprietors. The East Jer- 
sey agent found the proprietors of the western division dis- 
inclined to risk the expense of opposing the opinion of the 
lords of trade, but Robert Hunter Morris believed the West 
Jersey Society would take a " proper part in the affair." * 
The petition, however, was submitted by the East Jersey 
proprietors alone. After an elaborate review of the case, 
the petitioners asked that they might be heard against the 
report of July i8th. All efforts were of no avail, and the 
act for determining the boundary line was disallowed. 
Over five years had elapsed since the passage of the bill in 
the New Jersey legislature! 

The East Jersey proprietors fell into error because of 



^ N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 144. 

^ Ibid., p. 152. ^Ibid., p. 158. 



22lJ BOUNDARY DISPUTES 221 

their insistence that nothing should be done to invalidate 
what had been accomplished in 1719. It indicates the fear 
on their part that they could not hope for a more favorable 
decision than that would have been had it been consum- 
mated, and the intimation that nothing less favorable to 
them should be considered. The royal authorities, however, 
by assenting to the boundary line acts of both provinces in 
1719, did warrant the proceedings at that time. But those 
proceedings resulted in no definite or final agreement and 
should not have been made almost the sine qua non in the 
case of the Jersey proprietors over thirty years later. On 
the other hand it was not strict justice to consider the royal 
quit rents in this boundary dispute. The true determination 
could be made only according to the interpretation of the 
land grants and not by any gerrymandering of the line to 
suit the royal revenue. An impartial consideration of every 
circumstance does not appear to have been the constant rule 
of any of the parties concerned, but the attitude of New 
Jersey is less reprehensible than that of New York or the 
crown. 

At this time, the summer of 1753, the upper parts of 
Morris County were erected into Sussex County.^ New 
courts, new officials, and new tax-gatherers were estab- 
lished along this border country, thus increasing the possi- 
bility of disorders. On December 20, 1753, Governor Bel- 
cher, in view of the riots and outrages that had taken place, 
besought the lords of trade to consider ways and means to 
bring about a settlement of the boundary, as there was little 
prospect of an amicable adjustment between the two pro- 
vinces.^ In July, 1753, Richard Gardiner, an East Jersey 
surveyor, had been threatened " with horrid oaths and a 

' Allinson, op. cit., p. 194. 

'A'^. J. A., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 190. 



222 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [222 

pistol ", wounded and robbed.* New Jersey officials were 
arrested and hauled before New York justices for per- 
forming their duties in the disputed territory. It was said 
that to " enumerate all the cruelties and abuses committed 
by the people of New York upon people of New Jersey " 
would have filled a large volume! 

But it is not to be supposed that the Jerseymen along the 
border were entirely passive. The records of each colony 
testify to the violence of the other party. On a Sunday in 
February, 1754, New Yorkers claimed that " about fifty 
Jersey People had attacked and taken Justice Swartwout 
and Justice Westbrook, and had greatly beat and abused 
Justice Swartwout and had carried those two Justices down 
below Pechaqualong before Justice Van Camp." ^ Not only 
were Orange County officials thus summarily dealt with, 
but it is likewise alleged that inhabitants of that county 
deserted their homes or else converted them into veritable 
forts. 

Little time elapsed after the notice of the disallowance 
of the act of 1748 before the East Jersey proprietors made 
the next move. They were rather stirred to activity by 
discrediting reports published by the New York legislature. 
A most exhaustive and detailed statement of the dispute 
was presented to Belcher in a memorial of the council of 
the East Jersey proprietors, dated November 20, 1753.^ 
The following March it was sent to the lords of trade by 
Robert Hunter Morris. The distinguishing feature of this 
document was its advocacy of a temporary line of jurisdic- 
tion. It was contended that there were no sufficient reasons 
for not regarding the observations of 17 19 at least as fixing 

'iV, J. A., vol. viii,pt. i, p. 226 et seq.; vol. xvi, pp. 435 et seq. 
"^ Ibid., vol. xvi, p. 437; vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 20. 
^ Ibid., pp. 202-286. 



223] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 223 

a temporary line. If New York regarded this as an en- 
croachment, running the true line would be the remedy, or 
New York should show better reasons for any other tem- 
porary line. The governor was urged to assert the juris- 
diction of the province up to the line designated in 1719. 
To further evince their earnestness in the matter, the East 
Jersey council of proprietors entered into a bond of £2,000 
to pay half the charge for executing a royal commission 
to settle the bounds between New York and New Jersey.^ 

The lords of trade concurred in the belief that a tem- 
porary boundary should be fixed, and promised shortly to 
so recommend to the king. In the meantime Governor 
Belcher and Lieutenant Governor De Lancey were both to 
take all legal and proper measures to preserve the peace in 
the disrupted region.^ New York, however, showed no 
disposition to agree even to a temporary line of jurisdic- 
tion.^ Belcher's repeated letters to De Lancey urging that 
such action be taken were ignored. There was no respite of 
violence along the frontier and the governor of New Jer- 
sey feared much bloodshed and many murders, if De Lancey 
did not cooperate with him to restore and preserve peace.* 
By November, 1754, Governor Belcher wrote to the lords 
of trade that matters " seem to be come to a Crisis ; and I 
am in much pain, least there should be bloodshed, among 
the Borders, before King's Orders can arrive." ^ 

The New Yorkers at length found it imperative to have 
a semblance of order maintained along the border. De 
Lancey wrote to the lords of trade, on December 15, 1754, 
of the necessity of a speedy settlement of a temporary line.' 

'TV. J. A., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 200. ''Ibid., p. 2q6 et seq. 

^ Ibid., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 2"]. ^ Ibid., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 30. 

''Ibid., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 72. *Ibid., p. 74. 



224 "^^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [224 

He was advised by the New York assembly to exercise 
jurisdiction to the line of 1686. This line was, of course, 
less favorable to New Jersey than the one of 1719, and in 
addition, as claimed by New York at this time, was some 
distance south of the actual observations of 1686^ The 
failure to agree upon even a temporary boundary precluded 
a speedy termination of the dispute. James Alexander 
felt that the New Yorkers were trying to wear the East 
Jersey proprietors out, but believed that none of the pro- 
prietors would grow weak in the contest. He evidently 
thought the dispute would be handed down from genera- 
tion to generation. Intimating that proprietary affairs 
must soon devolve upon others, because he was becoming 
old, the veteran Alexander wrote to Paris, in January, 
1755, that he also "must be well Advanced in Years."* 
The agent was advised to fee some dependable gentleman, 
who could assist Paris in case he should become sick or dis- 
abled, for the differences with New York would continue to 
need an able manager. 

On June 12, 1755, the lords of trade reported against 
an act of the New York legislature " for submitting the 
controversy, between the Colonies of New York and New 
Jersey, relating to the partition between the said Colonies 
to the final determination of His Majesty," * To allow the 
king to decide the dispute without either party having the 
prospect of an appeal was pronounced unusual. To pre- 
viously ascertain the limits of the disputed property, as 
this act did, was declared improper. To propose a method 
of decision to which the New Jersey proprietors had not 
consented was regarded as ineffectual. The disallowance 
of the bill was recommended. 

'See Map, N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc, vol. viii, p. 157. 

^N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 90. ^ Ibid., p. 108. 



225] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 225 

At the same time, the proper method of procedure in 
this boundary dispute was declared to be by a commission, 
from whose decision either party could appeal to the king 
in privy council. As this was the plan which the New 
Jersey interests had continually favored, it was proposed 
that an additional instruction be sent to the governor of 
New York, now Sir Charles Hardy, directing him to 
recommend to the assembly of that province the payment of 
half of the expense of executing the suggested commission. 
The instruction was issued, and Hardy recommended to his 
assembly a dutiful compliance with what the king had or- 
dered.^ Belcher, optimistic as usual at the first appearance 
of light, wrote to the lords of trade of the importance of 
settling disputes between the colonies " in this time of Gen- 
eral Danger when their united strength is so necessary." ^ 
But had Belcher lived a decade longer than he did, he would 
not even then have had the satisfaction of witnessing the 
final adjustment of this persistent dispute. 

In colonial history it was frequently the case that the 
king proposed, but the assembly disposed. Governor Hardy 
urged and argued the matter with the New York assembly, 
but nothing was done.^ That body pleaded the heavy ex- 
pense to which the province would be put as the reason for 
this negligence. The New York executive suggested the 
propriety of having a commission in England determine 
the case, but the lords of trade rejected this as unprece- 
dented and not less expensive than the desired scheme.* 
He was ordered to again urge the assembly to make proper 
provision for the expense of the commission. The assem- 
bly however showed no disposition to obey the royal in- 
struction, and evidently had no intention of so doing. 

•iV. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 183. ^Ibid., p. 187. 

^ Ibid., p. 207. *Ibid., p. 213. 



226 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [226 

On September i, 1756, Belcher again entreated the Lon- 
don officials to interpose in the dispute, that more unfor- 
tunate consequences might be prevented.^ The East Jer- 
sey proprietors again petitioned the king.^ They definitely 
asked that a royal order be issued declaring the line of 1719 
the line of jurisdiction until the true line should " be finally 
settled, run and marked under a commission from your 
Majesty to be issued and carried into Execution at the Joint 
and Equal Expense of your Petitioners and the said pro- 
vince of New York." 

It seemed that this definite and just proposal must receive 
due consideration. The petition was referred to the lords 
of trade, and December 21, 1756, was the day appointed for 
a hearing.^ The usual delays followed. At length, on 
January 27, 1757, the lords of trade reported in favor of the 
temporary line, as indicated in the East Jersey petition. 
Agent Charles of New York had repeatedly succeeded in 
obtaining postponements, but the lords finally saw the neces- 
sity of restoring peace between the provinces.* New York 
was allowed six months in which to provide for the ex- 
penses of the final settlement, before the temporary arrange- 
ment should take effect. The report of the lords of trade 
was subsequently approved by a committee of the privy 
council.^ 

Six months were allowed ; years were taken. With char- 
acteristic ne.glect the matter was not pushed to completion 
and border strife again began. The inhabitants of northern 
New Jersey were particularly restive. Philip Swartwout 
certified to the council of New York that " one Petrus 
Smoke, who called himself Sheriff of Sussex County in the 

^ N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 224. ^ Ibid., p. 225. 

^ R. H. Morris Papers, vol. ii, p. 79 et seq. 

*N. J. A,, vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 243. ^ Ibid., p. 256. 



•27] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 227 

Province of New Jersey, with eleven other persons pre- 
ending to be inhabitants of New Jersey, but in fact being 
Jl or most of them possessors of Lands within the ancient 
md long exercised jurisdiction of this Province," that is 
view York, forcibly ousted him and his family from their 
)OSsessions/ The Orange County sheriff, obeying an order 
)f the New York council, reinstated Swartwout in his 
)Ossessions.^ But this did not end that gentleman's troubles 
vith the unneighborly Jerseymen. In the winter of 1761, 
' dreading the miseries to which an imprisonment in this 
■igorous season of the year would naturally expose him," 
5wartwout signed a £1,600 bond to appear at the Sussex 
bounty court on the third Tuesday in February.^ President 
Zolden of New York urged Governor Boone to take meas- 
ires for Swartwout's relief and prevent further encroach- 
nents upon the New York frontier.* 

An interval of quiet ensued, until finally, on December 
[I, 1762, the New York legislature passed an act to settle 
:he line.^ General Monckton, appointed governor of New 
i^ork the preceding year, sent a copy of the act to Governor 
Franklin, who laid it before the New Jersey legislature on 
May 28, 1763.® The measure passed in New York was en- 
:itled, 

A.n Act for submitting the property of the lands which are 
leld or claimed by grants under the Great Seal of this Colony 
md are affected by the Controversy about the boundary or 
Partition line between this Colony and the Colony of New 
Jersey to such a method of decision as his most Gracious 

^N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 178. *Ibid., p. 182. 

^ Ibid., p. 250. ^ Ibid., p. 253. 

*7V. Y. Colonial Laws, vol. iv, p. 640. 
^ Assembly Journal , May 28, 1763. 



228 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [228 

Majesty shall think proper by his Royal Commission or other- 
wise to appoint and for defraying the expense to accrue on 
the part of this colony on the final settlement of the said Line. 

John Cruger, Henry Holland, Frederick Philipse, John 
Morin Scott, William Bayard and Benjamin Kissam were 
appointed agents to manage the controversy. The act was 
to be void if New Jersey did not pass a bill for the same 
purpose within a year. 

At no previous time had all parties concerned been so 
unanimously agreed upon the necessity of a settlement of 
the line of jurisdiction between the two provinces. In the 
New Jersey legislature a similar bill was promptly intro- 
duced, passed both houses and received the governor's ap- 
proval on June 3d.^ Five agents were appointed by the act 
to manage the controversy. By an act passed at the same 
session, the East Jersey proprietors bound themselves to in- 
demnify the province for any funds drawn out of the 
treasury for the purposes of the boundary settlement.^ 

Of the five agents nominated to manage the New Jersey 
interests in the controversy, one was opposed by the lords 
of trade and a second died shortly after the enactment of 
the law. The other three were John Stevens, James Parker 
and Henry Cuyler, naturally all large East Jersey land- 
holders. Inasmuch as the line act of 1763 was disallowed 
because of the one objectionable agent, only the title is 
given in Allinson's collection of laws, and the names of the 
undesirable and of the deceased nominee are not known. 

On February 21, 1764, Governor Franklin advised the 
asembly to pass another act for settling the line, in every 
respect like the former one, " except that instead of the two 
gentlemen first named therein," the names of William Don- 

• Allinson, op. cit., p. 254. ^ Ibid. 



229] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 229 

aldson and Walter Rutherford should be inserted/ This 
was accordingly done and two days later the act for sub' 
mitting the property of lands in the colony, " to such a 
method of decision as His most gracious Majesty shall 
think proper by his Royal Commission or otherwise to a^ 
point," was passed.^ Another bill was also enacted for 
subjecting the estates of the East Jersey proprietors to the 
exemption of the province from any expense.^ Three more 
years elapsed before the boundary commission was issued 
under the privy seal. 

The delay may have been caused by the selection of the 
commissioners. In August, 1764, Henry Wilmot, the New 
Jersey agent, submitted a list of five commissioners for run- 
ning the line. They were Governor Franklin, Andrew 
Oliver, Peter Randolph, Peyton Randolph, and Richard 
Corbin.* These men were evidently selected on the part 
of New Jersey, with the idea that New York would submit 
a similar list. In 1766 the list of commissioners to adjudi- 
cate the boundary dispute was announced, but met with 
some objections on the part of Wilmot. Petitioning the 
king for an alteration of the personnel of the commission, 
he asked that Charles Stewart be appointed instead of the 
late John Temple, and that Richard Bulkley, Charles Morris, 
Joseph Guerrish and Joseph Gorham be struck from the 
list.^ The rejection of the four last named gentleman was 
asked because they were Nova Scotia ofiicials, and too far 
removed from the scene of action. Wilmot mentioned that 
the appointment of fewer commissioners would have been 
more agreeable to both provinces. According to the list 
as finally issued, Morris was the only Nova Scotia officer 

^ Assembly Journal, Feb. 21, 1764. 

'Allinson, op. cit., p. 263. '^ Ibid., p. 265. 

*A^. J. A., vol. ix, p. 447. ^ Ibid., p. 589. 



230 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [230 

included, but the names of both Temple and Stewart ap- 
pear. 

The draft of the commission to settle the boundary dis- 
pute between New York and New Jersey was approved, 
June 26, 1767.^ Thirteen commissioners were appointed, 
five of whom constituted a quorum. If at the first or sec- 
ond meeting agents of the two provinces had not sub- 
mitted to the adjudicators a full statement of the case, the 
commissioners might proceed ex parte in the execution of 
the commission. Full powers were granted to adjudicate 
the case. Not sooner than two months, nor later than three 
months, after the decision was rendered, the commissioners 
were to meet in order that either party, if aggrieved, might 
enter an appeal to the king in privy council. 

The thrteen commissoners were:^ Charles Stewart, John 
Temple, and Peter Randolph, surveyors general of the 
customs for the district of Quebec, and of the northern and 
southern districts of America, respectively; Andrew Elliot, 
receiver general of quit rents in New York; Chambers 
Russell, judge of the Court of Vice Admiralty in Massa- 
chusetts; William Allen, chief justice of Pennsylvania; 
Samuel Holland and William De Brahm, surveyors gen- 
eral of lands for the northern and southern districts of 
America; Andrew Oliver, secretary of Massachusetts; 
Charles Morris, surveyor of lands of Nova Scotia; Peyton 
Randolph, attorney general of Virginia; Benjamin Frank- 
lin, of Pennsylvania, and Jared Ingersoll, of Connecticut. 

Two years passed before the first meeting of the com- 
missioners, held in New York in July 18, 1769.' Six of 
the thirteen were in attendance, Stewart, Morris, Elliot, 

^ N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 630. ^Ibid., p. 624. 

'Whitehead, Northern Boundary, p. 174. 



231] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 23I 

Holland, Oliver and Ingersoll. John Jay was appointed 
secretary. For New York, Scott, Bayard and Cruger were 
the most active agents; for New Jersey, Parker, Stevens 
and Rutherford. 

It is not within the province of this study to follow the 
proceedings of the commissioners.^ The decision, ren- 
dered on October 7, 1 769, and the subsequent developments 
in the case will be noted. The point on the Delaware de- 
termined upon was at the junction of the Mackhackimack 
and Delaware Rivers." That station, in latitude 41 degrees, 
21 minutes and T)? seconds was believed to have been in- 
tended in the deed from the Duke of York as at the north- 
ernmost branch of the Delaware. The point on the Hud- 
son should be fixed at 41 degrees. The straight line drawn 
between these two points was declared to be the true bound- 
ary. Samuel Holland and Charles Morris did not concur 
with the other commissioners as to the station at the Hud- 
son River, 

The decree was satisfactory to neither province. New 
York declared that both points were too far north ; New 
Jersey insisted that the station on the Delaware was too far 
south. By this decree, observed a New York newspaper 
account, " many Hundred Thousand Acres of Land, and 
a vast number of antient possessions held by patents under 
this colony, are totally ceded to New Jersey " ; and again, 
" Tho' by this decree the court house and Church in Orange 
Town is left a few Rods to the Northward of the line de- 
creed; yet upwards of 150 families settled in that antient 
county town, will, if the Decree be confirmed, be dismem- 
bered from this colony, and exposed to utter Ruin.'' ^ In 
their report to the governor, the New Jersey agents, on the 

^Minutes of the Boundary Commission, in N. Y. Hist. Soc. Library. 
*A^. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 15. ^ Ibid., vol. xxvi, p. 518. 



232 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [232 

Other hand, declared that the line, as decided would deprive 
their colony of at least 150,000 acres of land.^ 

The New York agents immediately appealed from the 
decree. The appeal was refused, as it could not be received 
until two months after the decision had been rendered. The 
commissioners thereupon adjourned to meet at Hartford, 
Connecticut, on December 8th, for the purpose of hearing 
the appeal of either party." Bayard, one of the New York 
agents, went to England presumably to exert his influence 
in favor of that province.^ The East Jersey proprietors 
sought to obtain the aid of the province in the further nego- 
tiation of the boundary dispute. Governor Franklin was 
advised by his council to recommend to the assembly that 
the New Jersey managers of the dispute should receive 
provincial assistance in any possible litigation before the 
crown.* In addition the East Jersey proprietors petitioned 
the legislature to grant a sum of money to enable them " to 
appeal to the king in council and support the just claim of 
this province against the extravagant claim of New York." ^ 
Although the immediate controversy was between indi- 
viduals, Franklin told the assembly it affected the interests 
of the two provinces, and New Jersey, like New York, 
should aid in defending the claims." 

A conference was held between committees of the coun- 
cil and assembly, the initiative having been taken by the 
lower house. ^ It was resolved to introduce a bill empower- 
ing the treasurers to take a bond, from the agents appointed 
to manage the controversy, for funds drawn pursuant to the 

^ N. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 14. ^Ibid., vol. xxvi, p. 519. 

'Whitehead, Northern Boundary, p. 183. 

^N. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 21. 

^ Assembly Journal , Nov. 9, 1769. ^Ibid., Nov. 18, 1769. 

'A. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 86. 



233] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 233 

line act, but that the treasurers should be indemnified by 
the agents. The committee of correspondence was directed 
to order the London agent to support the claim of the pro- 
vince by a memorial to the king/ An act to indemnify the 
treasurers for advancing not over £3,000, received the gov- 
ernor's assent on December 6, 1769.- This was of course 
simply a loan by the province to the proprietors. 

On December 8, 1769, the day set for the appeal, Elliot 
and Morris were the only two commissioners at the Hart- 
ford meeting. The following day also there was no quorum, 
and as the New York commissioners would not agree to act 
without a quorum, adjournment was taken to July 4, 1770. 
Meanwhile application was made to the royal authorities for 
further instructions. The king ordered that any action 
taken by the commissioners, on July 4, 1770, should be 
valid regardless of a quorum. One lone commissioner, An- 
drew Elliot, appeared in New York on the day set, and 
adjourned " the meeting " to the " first Tuesday in May 
next." ' 

The agents of both provinces, however, decided to abide 
by the decision of the commission and no further meetings 
were held. Arrangements were made for surveying the 
line.* James Parker, John Stevens, and Walter Ruther- 
ford for New Jersey, and John De Noyelles and William 
Wickham for New York were to supervise the necessary 
surveys. The governors of both provinces issued procla- 
mations requiring the inhabitants along the border to aid 
the agents and surveyors, threatening with punishment any 
who hindered the work.^ 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. i, 1769. 

'Allinson, op. cit., p. 335. 

'^Minutes of the Commission , N. J. A., vol. xxvi. p. 587. 

*N. J. A., vol. X, p. 194. "Ibid., pp. 178, I94- 



234 I'HE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [234 

On October 18, 1770, the East Jersey proprietors peti- 
tioned the assembly for leave to introduce a bill confirming 
the terms of agreement made between the New York and 
New Jersey agents for running the line/ The permission 
having been granted, an act establishing the boundary and 
confirming the titles and possession of the lands adjacent 
to the line was passed, and received the governor's assent 
on October 2y, 1770.^ 

A proviso was in the bill that New York should pass a 
similar act. The bill which the legislature of that province 
passed on February 16, 1771 did not entirely correspond 
to the New Jersey measure. Consequently Governor Frank- 
lin, in September, 1772, recommended the enactment of a 
law similar to that of New York.^ Such an act received the 
governor's assent on September 26, 1772.* In the assem- 
bly the bill passed by a narrow margin, the affirmative vote 
of the speaker saving it.^ The boundary acts of both pro- 
vinces were approved, and the exasperating and lengthy 
dispute was settled.® 

The surveyors of the boundary line, John Stevens, Walter 
Rutherford, Walter Wickham and Samuel Gale, reported, 
on November 30, 1774, that the partition line had been 
marked " so that it may be sufficiently known and dis- 
tinguished." '' A rock on the west side of the Hudson in 
latitude of the 41 degrees had been marked. Trees along 
the line had been designated " with a Blaze and five notches 
under the same." Forty-eight stone monuments were 
erected at one-mile intervals with " the words New York 
on the North Side of each of the said Monuments and the 

^ Assembly Journal, Oct. 18, 1770. ^Allinson, op. cit., p. 342. 

^ Assembly Journal, Sept. 11, 1772. *Allinson, op. cit., p. 368. 
^ Assembly Journal, Sept. 19, 1772. 

*A^. J. A., vol. X, p. 416. ''Ibid., p. 150. 



235] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 235 

words New Jersey on the south side of each of the said 
Monuments." 

In a question of this nature the material interests of the 
persons concerned not unnaturally determined their point 
of view. This is evident when it is considered that, al- 
though the language of the original grant was remarkably 
free from ambiguities, there were so many opinions as to 
where the true line should go. " To the northward as far 
as ye Northermost branch of the said Bay or River, of 
Delaware which is in fourtie one degrees and fourtie min- 
utes of latitude," New Jersey was to extend according to 
the grant. The confluence of the Delaware and the Mack- 
hackimack was in latitude 41 degrees and 21 minutes. 
Neither the specified latitude of the grant nor the descriptive 
clause as to the northern branch of the river was observed. 
The decision seemed to fix upon a point midway between 
a line run at random in 17 19, the most favorable to New 
Jersey, and the line claimed by New York as the one agreed 
upon in 1686, the most favorable to that province. If the 
point, as fixed, is regarded as a compromise. New York 
fared much better than her neighbor. Regarded in the light 
of the terms of the grant. New Jersey's interests were ap- 
parently sacrificed to those of her more powerful and 
wealthy rival. 

In connection with the northern boundary difficulty, ref- 
erence may be made to the disputed claims to the ownership 
of Staten Island. A mere glance at the map shows that 
this island is geographically a part of New Jersey. The 
territorial grant to Berkeley and Carteret, quoted at the 
beginning of this chapter, included the tract of land " to 
the Westward of Long Island and Manhitas Island ".^ 
This clearly indicates that the Duke of York granted Staten 

' A^. J. A., vol. i, p. 12. 



236 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [236 

Island to the two noblemen. The hostility of Governor 
Nicolls to the Duke's transfer to Berkeley and Carteret has 
been mentioned, and he never aillowred the New Jersey au- 
thorities to exercise jurisdiction over the island. The repre- 
sentations of New Jersey to secure possession, during the 
proprietary period, and once, in 1704, after the surrender 
to the king, were of no avail. ^ From that time until after 
the Revolution no formal action was taken in the matter, 
and Staten Island was recognized as belonging to New 
York. All boundary disputes between New York and New 
Jersey were not adjusted until 1833, when the question of 
the jurisdiction over the waters lying between the two states 
was decided. 

The determination of the northern boundary line dis- 
turbed an agreement of long existence between the East 
and West Jersey proprietors. An agreement between Car- 
teret and the West Jersey proprietors, in 1676, declared the 
line between the two divisions to be one drawn from Little 
Egg Harbour to the northernmost point of the province.* 
No effort, however, was made to run the line for several 
years. Later, when attempts were made, difficulties en- 
sued.^ Twice, in 1686 and again in 1688, negotiations for 
the purpose fell through. In the last named year, a rather 
arbitrary agreement was made between Robert Barclay of 
East Jersey and Daniel Coxe of West Jersey.* So unfav- 
orable to the East Jersey proprietors was this arrangement 
that they rejected it, and thirty years passed before negotia- 
tions were again resumed. To run the line in accordance 
with the agreement between Carteret and the West Jersey 
proprietors in 1676, was the decision in 1718. This was, 

^A^. J. A., vol. i, p. 349, 350; iii, p. 61. ^ Ibid., p. 212. 

^Tanner, op. cit., p. 62,2, et seq. 

* Samuel Smith, History of New Jersey, p. 196. 



2^y] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 237 

of course, not such an attractive proposition for the men 
of the western division. A legislative act for the purpose 
was passed and commissioners were named, but the oppo- 
sition of Coxe and the return of Governor Hunter to Eng- 
land interfered with the success of the project at that time. 

Although the efforts of the Coxe interests to secure the 
disallowance of the act of 1719 for running the line failed, 
almost another three decades elapsed before an attempt was 
made to make the surveys. The West Jersey proprietors 
persistently refused to join with the eastern proprietors in 
determining the boundary, and in 1743 the latter decided to 
run the line ex parte. John Hamilton and Andrew John- 
stone, as commissioners under the partition act of 1719, ap- 
pointed John Lawrence to run the line. A commission and 
a set of twenty-one instructions were issued to him in the 
summer of 1743.^ To aid Lawrence in the work he was 
" to employ Martin Ryerson or Gersham Mott or some 
other as an assistant surveyor " and before the end of that 
year the division line of the two sections of New Jersey 
had been determined. This independent action on the part 
of the East Jerseymen naturally did not receive the un- 
qualified approval of the landholders of the other division.^ 
Nevertheless the former insisted upon the justice of the 
Lawrence surveys and the West Jersey proprietors by sub- 
sequent acts practically acquiesced therein. 

It will be remembered from the discussion of the northern 
boundary question that the West Jersey proprietors did not 
regard themselves as directly affected by that controversy. 
The Lawrence line had been run in 1743 from the most 
southerly point of the east side of Little Egg Harbor to 
what was then regarded as the most northerly point of 

' M J. A., vol. vi, p. 154. 

'' Mitiutes of the Council of East Jersey Proprietors, Aug. 17, 1742. 



238 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [238 

the province, in latitude of 41 degrees and 40 minutes. By 
the decision of the royal commission in 1769, however, the 
northernmost point was thrown far to the eastward. Con- 
sequently it was decidedly to the advantage of the West 
Jersey proprietors to regard the newly-determined point at 
the confluence of the Delaware and the Mackhackimack 
as the northern point of division between the two parts of 
the province. On December i, 1775, Daniel Coxe, then 
president of the council of West Jersey proprietors, peti- 
tioned the legislature for permission^ to have introduced 
at the next session a bill for appointing commissioners to 
settle the line dispute.^ He suggested that the East Jersey 
proprietors should acquiesce in such a mode of determining 
the differences. The desired leave was granted. As no 
further sessions of the provincial legislature were held, and 
the turmoil of the Revolution interrupted, the subject was 
dropped for some years. Although outside of the period 
of this study, it may be mentioned that an application to 
the state legislature in 1782 for the above mentioned pur- 
pose was rejected by a substantial majority.^ 

Had the plan of the West Jersey proprietors, to have 
the partition line run from the northern point as deter- 
mined in 1769 to Little Egg Harbor, succeeded, they would 
have gained about four hundred and twenty-five thousand 
acres of territory.^ The line fixed in 1743 gave West 
Jersey an excess of at least a million acres over East Jersey. 
To have made the disparity almost two million acres was 
more than the men of the eastern division were willingly 
disposed to allow. Leaving out of consideration any 
thought of the equalization of the two divisions, the position 

^Assembly Journal, Dec. i, 1775. 
'Gordon, History of New Jersey, p. 74. 
^ Ibid., p. 75, statistical note. 



239] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 239 

of the West Jerseymen was not unnatural or extreme. 
Both parties had in practise regarded the north partition 
point as marking one end of the line. The final decision 
as to the location of that point was not rendered until 1769, 
when it was officially declared to be not in latitude 41 de- 
grees and 40 minutes, but at the junction of two streams. 
According to the final decision, latitude 41 degrees and 40 
minutes was far outside of the province, and could not 
properly be regarded as the beginning of a line to divide 
the province into two parts. Whether the point as fixed 
by the royal commission was equitable is another question. 
The fact is, it was accepted and regarded as the northern' 
most point of New Jersey. 



CHAPTER VIII 

The Judicial System 

A STUDY of the judicial system of New Jersey shows that 
Httle essential change had taken place since its organization 
under Lord Cornbury's "Ordinance for Establishing Courts 
of Judicature," in 1704. The materials, existing in New 
Jersey under the proprietary system and in the other colo- 
nies, were systematized and formed the basis for the ordi- 
nance.^ 

This ordinance marked at least one bright spot in the 
corrupt Cornbury administration. The reorganization pro- 
vided for justices of the peace, with jurisdiction in debt and 
trespass cases up to forty shillings, a right of appeal to the 
court of sessions being granted in cases involving over 
twenty shillings. There was to be a Court of Common 
Pleas held in every county where there were Courts of Gen- 
eral Sessions. These courts could hear and determine all 
common law actions, with the proviso that actions involving 
ten pounds or over could be heard in the Supreme Court. 
Courts of General Sessions were held four times a year at 
designated times and places. The highest regular court was 
the Supreme Court, having jurisdiction in all pleas, " civil, 
criminal and mixt, as fully and amply, to all intents and 
purposes, whatsoever, as the Courts of Queens Bench, Com- 
mon Pleas and Exchequer within her Majesties Kingdom 

' For this general subject, see Field, Provincial Courts of New Jersey, 
and Tanner, The Province of New Jersey, ch. xxiii. 

240 [240 



241 ] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 241 

of England." ^ The provision of the ordinance that the 
Supreme Court should sit alternately at Perth Amboy and 
Burlington, was later superseded by an ordinance of 1728, 
establishing two Supreme Courts, one at each of the above 
named places.^ 

And thus outlined, such to-day is the general structure 
of the judiciary. Changes naturally did occur in the prac- 
tise of the courts. Such alterations were instituted by either 
royal instructions, governor's ordinances or provincial legis- 
lation. Let us trace these alterations during the period 
under consideration. 

During Belcher's administration, on December 5, 1753, 
an additional instruction was sent to the colonial governors 
altering the methods of appeals.^ The royal instructions in 
New Jersey had from the first allowed the right of appeal 
from the highest provincial court to the governor and coun- 
cil in cases exceeding £100 Sterling. If the case involved 
over £200, appeal might be made to the crown's privy coun- 
cil.'* The new instruction cited this method as having be- 
come defective and improper. Appeals were now to be 
made to governor and council only when the cases involved 
at least £300 Sterling, and to the crown in privy council 
when the amount exceeded £500. Only when security was 
given that the suit would be prosecuted was appeal to Eng- 
land allowable. The instruction further provided that 
where judges of the court from which the appeal was made 
were members of the provincial council, they could be pres- 
ent at hearings and give reasons for their judgment but 
could not vote. Of course, execution was suspended until 

' For the Cornbury Ordinance, see Field, op. ci(., Appendix C. 
^ Field, op. cit., Appendix F. 
^ N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 188. 
*Ibid., vol. ii, p. 551. 



242 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [242 

the final determination of appeals. Exception to the £500 
rule was also made in cases involving- sums payable to the 
crown, when appeal could be made even though a less sum 
was involved. 

In December, 1761, an instruction which later had its in- 
fluence in the Revolution was prepared by the lords of trade, 
and subsequently sent to the royal governors. Up to this 
time the royal instructions to the New Jersey governors 
guarded against arbitrary removals of judges by making 
their commissions unlimited as to time, which naturally 
came to be interpreted by the colonists to mean during good 
behavior. In 1761 Lieutenant Governor Golden of New 
York with great hesitation assented to an act of the legisla- 
ture explicitly providing that the judges should hold their 
commissions during good behavior. The additional instruc- 
tion recited that certain of the colonial legislatures had en- 
acted laws granting judges good-behavior tenures, and 
that certain governors had, contrary to instructions, granted 
some commissions during good behavior. Such commis- 
sions were declared to be for the advantage of neither colo- 
nies nor home government and the governors were ordered, 
upon pain of removal, to refuse their assent to legislative 
acts, granting like tenures to judges of the provincial courts. 
Commissions were to be granted during pleasure only, 
" agreeable to what has been the Ancient Practise and 
Usage " in the colonies.^ 

That such could be said to have been " the Ancient Prac- 
tise and Usage " in general in the colonies may not be true 
and strict adherence to it had not been given in New Jersey. 
An instance of this is found in New Jersey history in the 
case of the Jones-Morris contest for the chief justiceship, 

^A''. J. A., vol. ix, p. 329. This instruction was sent to the gover- 
nors under date of Dec. 12, 1761. 



243] '^^^ JUDICIAL SYSTEM 243 

later to be mentioned. That the crown made colonial 
judges dependent upon his will became one of the chief 
grievances against the mother country in the American 
Revolution.^ It was asserted by the colonists that in Eng- 
land this wrong had been righted, years before, by the Eng- 
lish Revolution. The lords of trade maintained that the 
circumstances in the colonies were in no way similar to 
what they had been in Great Britain." They complained, 
and not without some truth, that owing to the lack of a 
suitable allowance for the judges, governors had been ob- 
liged to commission inferior persons, who consulted their 
own interests and became " the Partizans of a factious As- 
sembly," upon whom they were dependent for support.^ 
As events proved, their proposed remedy for an evil, which 
they exaggerated, was scarcely remedial. 

In New Jersey the royal authorities were soon given op- 
portunity to display their firmness in this matter. Upon 
the death of George the Second, there appears to have been 
a cessation of business in the Supreme Courts, because the 
judge's commissions had not been renewed.* Upon his ar- 
rival in the province. Governor Hardy, fearing evil conse- 
quences from such a condition of affairs, renewed the com- 
missions " as they have hitherto been granted, which is 
during good behaviour." '' Moreover the assembly refused 
to make provision for judges who accepted commissions 
with tenure during pleasure. The governor had commis- 
sioned three judges, Morris and his two associates on the 
Supreme Court bench, during good behavior and the lords 
of trade, as previously mentioned, recommended his re- 
moval. Before Hardy received notification of his removal, 

' See the Declaration of Independence. 

^ N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 312. ■•Ibid., p. 313. 

*Ibid., p. 346. -'Ibid., p. 346. 



244 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [244 

he had revoked several commissions granted by Belcher 
to judges of the Common Pleas, having the objectionable 
tenure, and the Supreme Court judges thus commissioned 
had agreed to accept commissions as the king wished/ 
Eleventh-hour compliance did not satisfy the authorities, 
however, and the governor was deprived of his office.^ The 
home officials were also thus enabled to show that a strict 
adherence to this new instruction would be required. 

In May, 1764, during Franklin's rule, the lords of trade 
prepared an additional instruction against the taking of 
exorbitant fees in the colonies.^ The governors were or- 
dered to have displayed in all public offices tables of the 
legal fees, and further, to enjoin all officers to receive only 
the legal fees or suffer removal and prosecution. That this 
instruction was ever sent to the governors does not appear. 

An " Ordinance for Holding the Supreme Court for the 
Province of New Jersey " was issued by Governor Franklin 
on May 11, 1764.'* The appointed times for holding the 
sessions had come to be inconvenient and consequently 
were changed. Doubtless because of the growth of the 
province, there was a provision that if, after the regular 
five-day session, a " Multiplicity of Business then Depend- 
ing " rendered it expedient, the regular term at such time 
might be prolonged to the Tuesday following the commence- 
ment of the term. The regular term was from Tuseday 
to Saturday. Appeals, this ordinance stated, were to be 
made to the Supreme Court in accordance with the laws of 
" England and the laws of our Province of New Jersey not 
Repugnant thereto." Provision was made for holding 
yearly Circuit Courts in all the counties, except Cape May, 
to be presided over by a Supreme Court justice. The times 

^N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 367. * Ibid., p. 361. 

/ ^ Ibid., p. 440. ^ Ibid., p. 434. 



245] ^^^ JUDICIAL SYSTEM 245 

and places of such sittings were to be appointed by the 
justices. Cape May causes were to be tried in Cumberland 
County. This provision for circuit courts was essentially 
the same as under Hunter's ordinance of 1725.^ 

An important ordinance relating to the judiciary was the 
" Ordinance in relation to the Court of Chancery," issued 
by Governor Franklin on March 28, 1770. Equity Courts 
encountered considerable hostility in the colonies, and al- 
though this was perhaps most pronounced in New York 
and Pennsylvania, nevertheless New Jersey harbored much 
similar distrust.^ Lord Cornbury by ordinance had con- 
stituted the governor, lieutenant governor and any three 
councillors as a Court of Chancery, but Governor Hunter 
exercised the powers alone. This one-man power was op- 
posed, but the action of Hunter meeting with the approval 
of the crown, the exercise of chancery powers continued 
under his ordinance until 1770. 

In April, 1768, Franklin addressed the legislature upon 
the subject of the Chancery Court.^ Mischiefs would at- 
tend its disuse, said the governor, for which reason he had 
maintained the court to his own pecuniary disadvantage. 
As there was no salary for the necessary officers and the 
fees were insufficient, he recommended a reasonable allow- 
ance in order that appointments to the necessary offices 
could be made. The assembly asked the governor to notify 
them specifically what officers were needed. Although he 
sent them a list of the officers and suggested fit salaries the 
assembly did not enter into the proper measures, being loath 
to create new offices and expend extra funds. 

Thereupon the governor turned to the council for advice. 
They were informed that doubts had arisen as to the au- 

' Field, op. cit., p. 287. '^Ibid., p. 108 et seq. 

^ N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 467. 



i46 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [246 

thority of the governor to execute the office of chancellor, 
and were asked to report in writing-, before May 14, 1770/ 
This was in November, 1769, and meanwhile all chancery 
proceedings were to be suspended. 

The opinions of the councillors were varied and interest- 
ing, the majority favoring an ordinance appointing the gov- 
ernor to be chancellor. The most elaborate argument was 
that of Richard Stockton, who submitted his opinion in the 
form of a letter to Hillsborough, the Secretary of State. •^ 
Considering the subject under these two questions, " ist, 
Whether a Court of Equity does Exist in this Province? 
and if it does, 2dly, Whether the Governor is the Judge of 
it ? " he decides both affirmatively. He supports his de- 
cision by a long and able argument. Frederick Smyth was 
of opinion that as the governor had no special commission 
as chancellor, nor any authority as such under his general 
commission as governor, he was not legally authorized so 
to act.^ The chief justice further maintained that provision 
for such a court would be made after application to the 
crown. Inasmuch as Cornbury had been justified in the 
original establishment of a Court of Chancery in New Jer- 
sey, wrote Samuel Smith, the present governor with the 
same authority in his commission had power with the advice 
and consent of the council to continue the court.* After a 
rather extended argument, Charles Read concluded that no 
equity court existed in New Jersey, and the matter being 
important should be settled in England.^ David Ogden, 
reaching his opinion by answering eight questions at great 
length, believed that the governor had the power neither by 
his commission, his instructions, nor by the common law of 

^ N. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 25. 

''Ibid., vol. X, p. 155. '^ Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 121. 

"Ibid., p. 128. "Ibid., p. 130. 



247] ^^^ JUDICIAL SYSTEM 247 

England to act as sole agent in equity cases.' The power 
to erect the court was vested in the legislature, declared 
Ogden. With great interest in the case, the learned Ogden 
submitted a " further Opinion," arriving of course at the 
same general conclusion. James Parker agreed that it 
never was the intention that the governor should act as 
chancellor, but that a chancery court might be established 
by ordinance and then the king's further instruction asked. ^ 
John Ladd was of the opinion that the court still existed."* 
Although existing, the court had not been properly estab- 
lished since 171 3, obsei-ved John Stevens. An ordinance 
should be issued and the king's further instruction sought.* 
That if the court does not exist, the governor has full power 
to erect it and should issue an ordinance for the purpose, 
was the opinion of John Smith. ^ Lord Stirling wrote that 
Franklin never having been so appointed was not justified 
in acting as chancellor." The necessity for such a court 
was however apparent, he continued, and one or more 
proper persons should be by ordinance commissioned as 
judges. In addition to laying before the council these 
opinions, the governor submitted some of his royal instruc- 
tions to them and some extracts from council minutes bear- 
ing upon the subject." Taking all the materials into con- 
sideration, the council advised that the attorney general 
draw up an ordinance for better establishing the Court of 
Chancery and appointing the governor Chancellor.^ After 
subsequent approval of the ordinance by the council, the 
governor, on March 28, 1770, took the oath as chancellor. 
The ordinance purported to be for the better establish- 

^N. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 135. ^ Ibid., p. 161. 

^ Ibid., p. 163. "Ibid., p. 164. 

^Ibid., p. 165. ^Ibid., p. 167. 

'Ibid., p. 154. ^Ibid., p. 169. 



248 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [248 

ing of the Court of Chancery, which had always existed in 
(the province.^ Franklin was appointed by virtue of the 
powers under the great seal. The form of oath was pre- 
scribed and the chancellor was empowered to fix days for 
the hearing and determination of causes, to appoint and 
commission necessary masters, clerks, examiners, registers 
and other officers, and to make rules and regulations for 
carrying on the business of the court. This ordinance con- 
tinued until 1776, but the Court of Chancery under the 
State government succeeded to virtually the same powers. 

On June 19, 1772, Governor Franklin issued a proclama- 
tion appointing four regular terms of the Court of Chan- 
cery, two to be held at Perth Amboy, and two at Burlington.^ 
The day for the beginning of the term was in each case 
appointed and they were " to continue from Day to Day as 
long as may be expedient." 

The first legislative alteration in the practise of the 
courts during this period was the " Act to prevent Actions 
of Fifteen Pounds, and under, being brought into the Su- 
preme Court of this Colony," passed in 1741.^ This act was 
a bone of contention between Governor Morris and the as- 
sembly. He regarded it as no more than an attempt on the 
part of the popular body to restrict the jurisdiction of the 
highest court and lessen the judges' salaries.* Only because 
it was a temporary act, having the council's approval, was 
his assent given. His suggestion to the lords of trade, how- 
ever, that their disallowance of the act would be more bene- 
ficial to prevent such attempts by the assembly in the future, 
than his refusal to assent would be, was not followed. The 
lords decided that they should first learn how the bill worked 

^ N. J. A., vol. X, p. 184. * Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 289. 

' Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey, p. 159. 
^Morris Papers, p. 140. 



249] ^^^ JUDICIAL SYSTEM 249 

in practise, before they proposed its disallowance/ It was 
forbidden to bring suits for less than fifteen pounds, Queen 
Anne's proclamation money, into the Supreme Court, ex- 
cept in cases involving land titles. A penalty was prescribed 
for bringing suits contrary to the intent of the act. 

In 1744, Morris complained to the lords of trade that his 
former fears had not been groundless.^ The act had been 
prejudicial to the chief justice and had lessened the jurisdic- 
tion of the Supreme Court. As it was now about to expire, 
the assembly, he rather wildly asserted, would probably 
make it perpetual. The bill was introduced in the March 
session of 1746, but the council refused to pass it. The 
second assembly that Governor Belcher met, however, came 
to an agreement with the council more readily, and the bill, 
limited to five years, was passed, February 18, 1748. It 
was subsequently renewed in 1753, and in 1760 was con- 
tinued without limitation.^ 

When Morris denounced the bill he was representing to 
the home officials the side of the office holders. The benefits 
to the people, however, outweighed any disadvantages. 
The opposition of the council, in 1746, to the renewal of 
the act was doubtless due to its domination by Morris. 
Only a year later with the same council, but a different gov- 
ernor, there was little or no opposition to its passage. 

In 1748, another act which had been strenuously objected 
to by Morris and his council was rather quietly passed in 
Belcher's administration. This was " an Act to oblige 
the several Sheriffs of this Colony of New Jersey to give 
Security, take the Oaths or Affirmations therein directed 
for the Discharge of their Offices, and to prevent their too 
long Continuance therein." * Complaints were upon occa- 

^ Morris Papers, p. 150. ^ Ibid., p. 183. 

'A''. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 406; Allinson, op. cit., p. 227. 
*Allinson, op. cit., p. 156. 



250 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [250 

sion made that sheriffs refused to give the required security 
for the proper discharge of their duties/ Upon three oc- 
casions, in 1742, attempts were made by the assembly to 
secure the passage of the above-named bill, only to come to 
a disagreement with the council upon amendments, and to 
have it finally rejected at each session. The opposition to 
the bill was engendered because it limited slightly the gov- 
ernor's power in appointing sheriffs. And Governor Morris, 
seconded by his council, was always touchy regarding his 
prerogatives. 

The measure received Governor Belcher's assent, January 
18, 1748, and was later allowed by the royal authorities. 
The lords of trade, however, did not show eagerness to ap- 
prove the measure, for after it had been reported favorably 
by Matthew Lamb, one of the royal counsellors-at-law, they 
returned it to him for his reconsideration.^ He justified 
his decision on the ground that similar acts had been passed 
and confirmed in neighboring provinces, and even in Eng- 
land legislative acts had somewhat limited the crown's au- 
thority in the appointment of sheriffs.^ 

By the act sheriffs were obliged to enter into bond for 
£800, except the Cape May county sheriff, whose bond was 
fixed at £200. The form of oath which the officers were to 
take was identical with one required in the " Act for secur- 
ing His Majesty's Government in New Jersey," passed in 
1722.* A special form of affirmation for " the People 
called Quakers " was prescribed. Sheriffs who did not 
enter into bond and take the oaths were disqualified. The 
oaths could be administered by any judge of a Court of 
Common Pleas, or any mayor or chief magistrate. The 

• iV. J. A., vol. XV, p. 90. 

^Ibid., vol. vii, p. 296. ^ Ibid., p. 329. 

*Allinson, op. cit., p. 62. 



251] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 25 1 

form of the required bond was also given. The last sec- 
tion, limiting the sheriff's continuance in office to three 
years, was the provision that had caused opposition to the 
act. They could hold office again after three years. Sher- 
iffs, furthermore, were required to be freeholders and resi- 
dents of the county for which they were appointed. 

The question of the amount of the fees which should 
properly be taken by the various officers of government was 
subject to frequent dispute, the parsimonious assembly en- 
deavoring to make the legal fees as low as possible. An 
act to establish fees and regulate the practise of the law 
had been passed in 1733 under Cosby, but was disallowed by 
the crown two years later.^ 

Ten years later, in December, 1743, another act for regu- 
lating fees was passed but met the same fate as the former 
measure.^ It was not objectionable in point of law, but com- 
plaints had been received that the fees determined upon 
were too small, " so inconsiderable that no Persons of Char- 
acter or Reputation will care to accept Employment 
therein." ^ This was Governor Morris's complaint, and he 
had a smart altercation with the assembly over the bill. 
The measure was passed with a suspending clause, but the 
assembly ordered the bill printed, soon after its passage, and 
by " suggesting " that the judges " ought " to conform to 
it, practically ordered its enforcement before the royal 
pleasure was known.* 

This was unwarrantable conduct and justified the gov- 
ernor in protesting strongly against the assembly, as it is 
needless to say he did.^ The conduct of the assembly in 
having the bill printed prematurely was given as a further 

^ N. J. A., vol. V, p. 377- 

^Ibid., vol. XV, p. 309. ^Ibid., vol. vi, p. 238. 

*lbid., p. 239. ^Ibid., vol. XV, p. 315. 



252 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [252 

reason for its disallowance. The royal disallowance, dated 
at Kensington, June 28, 1749, was laid before the council 
of New Jersey by Governor Belcher on October 12th. This 
is a striking example, also, of the leisurely manner in which 
the wheels of government moved. The bill was passed, 
December 5, 1743, and the council notified of its disallow- 
ance, October 12, 1749. 

Meanwhile an act providing among other things " for 
the Payment of the Services of the Several Officers of the 
Colony, and for preventing the said Officers from taking 
exorbitant Fees" was passed in February, 1748, and re- 
ceived the royal assent, November 23, 1749.^ This act had 
passed the council with practically no opposition.^ It set 
forth that after the king's assent only the fees therein 
stated should be accepted by public officers for their ser- 
vices. For every offence in accepting greater fees, £20 was 
to be forfeited. The law in addition enacted that if a cause 
was lost because of neglect or mismanagement on the part 
of an attorney, he should be liable for damages. The fees 
as established by this act continued to be in force during the 
rest of the colonial period, but were frequently complained 
against as insufficient, and scarce affording the officials a 
proper maintenance.^ 

" An Act to erect and establish Courts in the several 
Counties in this Colony, for the Trial of small Causes" was 
passed in 1748, as a previous bill for the same purpose was 
about to expire. The original measure unfortunately has 
been lost, but is thought " to have continued the jurisdic- 
tion of Justices of the Peace to recover Debts and other 
Demands for and under Five Pounds." * The act passed 

'Allinson, op. cit., p. 160. 

^N. J. A., vol. XV, pp. 614-618. *Ibid., vol. ix, p. 592. 

* Allinson, op. cit., p. 188. 



253] ^^^ JUDICIAL SYSTEM 253 

the legislature without difficulty in 1748. Actions for debt 
involving under £5 were made triable before any one Justice 
of the Peace/ In cases involving over 40 shillings either 
party might demand trial by a jury of six men. Appeal 
might be made to the next Court of Common Pleas also in 
cases of more than twenty shillings, except where the trial 
had been before six jurors. Fees to be taken in actions 
covered by this act were fixed. The bill of course detailed 
the process necessary to its operation, and excluded certain 
actions from the operation of the act. It was to continue 
for seven years. 

An act with the same title was passed in 1760, the former 
bill having " been found very beneficial to the inhabitants 
of this Colony ; and it being near expired of its own limita- 
tion." ^ It modified the former act, in that actions under 
£6 were to be cognizable before any one justice, but appeals 
could be taken in judgment of 20 shillings or more, as 
before, except where a jury verdict had been given. This 
act likewise was limited to seven years. In 1769 and 1775 
it was renewed after expiration. In every case the council 
made certain amendments to which the assembly assented. 

The legislature had passed an " Act to erect Courts in 
the several Counties in this Colony for the Trial of Causes 
of Ten Pounds and under," to which the governor assented 
on December 6, 1769.^ In the council this measure had en- 
countered opposition and was disallowed by the crown in 
June, 1771.* The assembly having been notified of the royal 
disallowance, expressed regret inasmuch as it was intended 
to make the recovery of small debts easier and less costly. ** 

' Nevill, Acts of the General Assembly, vol. i, p. 388. 

''Ibid., vol. ii, p. 335. 

^A^. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 217. 

*Ibid., p. 261. ^Ibid., p. 219. 



254 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [254 

The law had been in operation up to the time of its disallow- 
ance and in the opinion of the lower branch of the legisla- 
ture had " answered the Ends proposed, and proved bene- 
ficial to the People." The governor issued a proclamation 
declaring the act void. The order of the Privy Council 
does not state the reasons for the disallowance of the act. 

There appears to have been some doubt in the colony as 
to the effect of the death of George II upon the proceedings 
of the courts transacted after his demise. The justices and 
practitioners in the Supreme Court, expressing doubts to 
Governor Boone as to the validity in the reign of George III 
of an ordinance issued under the authority of the late king, 
urged him to issue a new ordinance.^ In order to prevent 
the possible interruption of legal proceedings, the council 
advised the governor to adopt the suggested course. The 
ordinance is not given, and inasmuch as an act of assembly 
for the purpose was passed shortly thereafter doubtless was 
never issued. 

The act of assembly was entitled " for obviating Doubts 
respecting the Acts of Assembly passed last Session ; and 
for Confirming the Proceedings of the Courts of Justice in 
this Province, since the Demise of his late Majesty." ^ It 
confirmed the legislative and judicial proceedings in the 
colony subsequent to the death of George II and previous 
to the proclamation of George III, provided for the future 
continuance of assemblies until six months after the death 
of the crown, and applied the above six months provision 
to the courts and their officers. This act was disallowed in 
1 76 1, as materially affecting the royal prerogative.^ The 
lords of trade declared that no doubts had ever arisen or 
could arise " with any Shadow of reason " regarding the 

' iV. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 232. 

'Nevill, op. cit., vol, ii, p. 390. 'TV. J. A., vol. ix, p. 331. 



255] '^^^ JUDICIAL SYSTEM 255 

validity of acts legally enacted after the death of a ruler. 
The provision continuing the courts and their officers was 
objectionable because it might be interpreted to deprive the 
crown of the power to remove officers or suspend commis- 
sions during the six months' interval. The order in coun- 
cil giving notification of the disallowance was laid before 
the New Jersey council, April 6, 1762.^ 

Another legislative enactment pertaining to the judiciary 
was disallowed in 1771. The act, however, had been passed 
in 1765, during the Stamp Act agitation. That it was 
aimed at the Stamp Act, Franklin may have thought possible, 
but such doubtless was not the case, for the people did not 
seriously intend to use stamped paper. The act, which was 
never printed, was " for regulating the Practise of the Law, 
and other Purposes therein mentioned." " The law would 
have reduced the number of court proceedings, and pre- 
vented certain illegal practises of the lawyers. Governor 
Franklin had assented to the measure only with a suspend- 
ing clause, but agreed to the necessity of the law, and so 
informed the lords of trade.^ 

The governor had notified the lords that the assembly 
would urge its confirmation. After waiting patiently for 
five years to hear from the New Jersey assembly, the lords 
of trade recommended the disallowance of the act.* One 
of the king's lawyers had reported that the act contained in- 
novations, without sufficiently stating the inconvenience of 
the old methods. The worthy lords, moreover, were of 
opinion, that the neglect of the assembly to urge the bill's 
approval betokened lack of argument in its support. Gov- 
ernor Franklin in communicating this disallowance to the 

^ N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 284. 

"Allinson, op. cit., p. 283. 

^A^. J. A., vol. ix, p. 490. ^ Ibid., vol. x, p. IQQ- 



256 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [256 

assembly said that the act had been rendered needless, be- 
cause of a subsequent act of the legislature/ The measure 
to which the governor had reference was passed in March, 
1770, and was entitled an " Act to provide a more effectual 
Remedy against excessive Costs in the Recovery of Debts 
under Fifty Pounds in this Colony; and for other purposes 
therein mentioned." ^ It brings us to the consideration of 
a critical period in the history of the judiciary. 

The legislation regarding the courts up to this time 
shows that the subject of fees and legal practises had long 
been matters, not only of importance, but of contention be- 
tween the different branches of the government. After 
the Fourth Intercolonial War there were evidences of great 
prosperity, followed, however, by a period of distress. For 
years lawyers had been accused of lengthening lawsuits and 
making legal proceedings expensive. When in Governor 
Franklin's administration, owing to the stringency of the 
times, money became scarce, debts piled up, and prosecu- 
tions increased, the people redoubled their clamorous 
charges against the courts and their officers.^ 

Numerous charges were made against some of the most 
respected members of the New Jersey Bar. Bernardus 
Legrange, having been accused of accepting exorbitant fees, 
was ordered to appear before the assembly. The house, not- 
withstanding his strong defence, declared the charges sus- 
tained. Later, however, certificates from the Supreme 
Court justices were shown declaring that the accused had 
not taken unwarrantable fees, and Legrange was exon- 
erated. Bias, because of the popular outcry, may have 
influenced the assembly in its previous resolution. Samuel 

^N. J. A., vol. X, p, 241. 
'Allinson, op. cit., p. 339. 
"Field, op. cit., p. 164 et seq. 



257] ^^^ JUDICIAL SYSTEM 257 

Allinson was another against whom groundless charges 
were made. 

Many petitions against the base lawyers were pouring 
into the assembly. On October 24, 1769, James Kinsey, 
Samuel Allinson, and John Lawrence, three prominent New 
Jersey lawyers, presented a memorial to the lower house 
which was an able defence of their conduct.^ It declared 
that the petitions sent to the assembly were all so similar 
that they doubtless came from one source. Numerous 
debtors implied numerous debts, on account of which credi- 
tors had the right to expect money. The indiscretion of the 
people, not the laws or lawyers, accounted for the many 
financial failures. The memorial declared that the sher- 
iffs were guilty of oppression for they were not obliged to 
submit their bills of costs for taxation, nor file them in any 
office, as was the case with the lawyers. They then pre- 
sented charges against Samuel Tucker, a Hunterdon County 
sheriff who had been elected to the legislature in 1769, 
and submitted what they regarded as evidence of his having 
charged exorbitant fees in three particular cases. The 
charges were especially interesting because Tucker had 
been particularly active in bringing charges against the 
lawyers.^ 

Tucker's defence was insufficient and upon investigation 
the assembly decided that in at least two of the cases ex- 
cessive fees had been charged. The house came to two reso- 
lutions, namely, that " it is illegal, a high misdemeanor, and 
a very great Grievance," for officers to take fees other than 
those allowed by government, and that Tucker had taken 
illegal and excessive fees, which was oppressive and a 
grievance. No further action was taken against him, how- 
ever. 

^ Assembly Journal, Oct. 24, 1769. 'Ibid., Nov. 3, 1769. 



258 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [258 

The discontent became so pronounced that there was ser- 
ious rioting in Essex and Monmouth Counties, which threat- 
ened to stop the course of justice. In July, 1769, an attempt 
was made by a mob of malcontents to prevent the session of 
the County Court at Freehold, Monmouth County. Al- 
though unsuccessful in this attempt, they later accomplished 
their purpose, when in January, 1770, the lawyers were 
driven from their court and the laws set at naught. There 
were similar riots in Essex County, where also the burning 
of considerable property belonging to the prominent law- 
yer, David Ogden, revealed the seriousness of the situation. 
Ogden's affairs were so crippled that he was obliged to re- 
sign from the assembly.^ Action against the rioters in 
Monmouth County was so dilatory and half-hearted that 
they practically escaped punishment for their misdeeds. 
Essex County showed a commendable spirit and quickly 
tried, convicted and punished the culprits. 

Impelled by the seriousness of the situation, Governor 
Franklin called a council meeting, directing also the attend- 
ance of the sheriff and justices who were present at the 
Monmouth riot in January, 1770." The assembly was also 
called for March 14th, and two days later the governor ad- 
dressed a long message to them upon the subject of the 
riots, urging firm measures to cope with the situation.^ The 
unjustifiable methods taken by the people to redress griev- 
ances were denounced in strong terms, especially after the 
legislative investigation had exonerated the lawyers. In the 
unwillingness of some and the inability of others to pay 
their debts, the governor believed lay the causes of the 
violence. That the people were unreasonable against the 
lawyers, Franklin showed by citing the activities of the 

^N. J. A., vol. X, pp. 149, 183. "^Ibid., p. 148. 

^Ibid., p. 172. 



259] ^^^ JUDICIAL SYSTEM 259 

Monmouth Grand Jury. After uncommon activity on the 
part of the Grand Jury in obtaining evidence, indictments 
only to the amount of fifty shilHngs could be found against 
them. After three lawyers were indicted, the indictments 
of two were easily quashed, the third not being at the time 
tried, because the accused was sick. The governor recom- 
mended acts for reviving and continuing the militia law, 
for better preventing tumults and riotous assemblies, for 
compelling the reparation and strengthening of prisons and 
for providing a sum for answering contingent and extraor- 
dinary expenses that might arise. He concluded with a 
warning as to the consequences that would attend the con- 
tinuance of anarchy and mob rule. 

The assembly " heartily grieved at the Occasion " of 
their meeting, and expressing regret for the errors of the 
" deluded People," set to work to enact the necessary laws.^ 
An act was passed to revive and continue the process of 
the courts of Monmouth County,^ as also acts to revive and 
better regulate the militia of the colony, and to prevent 
dangerous tumults and riotous assemblies. The governor 
was also asked to issue a proclamation offering £25 reward 
for the discovery and punishment of the perpetrators of the 
Ogden outrage.^ Franklin immediately issued the procla- 
mation, March 21, 1770, offering the suggested reward 
" for discovering and bringing to condign Punishment the 
Person or Persons guilty of that atrocious and Alarming 
villainy." * An accomplice who aided in the punishment 
of any of his associates was offered the royal pardon. 

The assembly was commendably impartial in its judg- 

^ N. J. A., vol. X, p. 180. 
'AUinson, op. cit., p. 339. 
^ Assembly Journal, Mar, 21, 1770. 
*N.J.A., vol. X, p. 183. 



26o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [260 

ments in this matter. They asserted their belief that the 
best remedy against any abuses from the lawyers was " an 
honest Care to fufil Contracts; and a patriotic Spirit of 
Frugality and Industry," but to quiet any popular misgiv- 
ings and prevent future outbreaks it seemed to them that 
there should be a regulation of the practise of the law.^ 
As has been mentioned, many petitions had been sent to the 
lower house, not only from the counties where disturbances 
had occurred, but from others also." Some of the petitions 
may have been " padded,'" as was charged in the case of 
those emanating from the storm centers, but they were so 
numerous as to show widespread dissatisfaction. They 
were similar in tone. The great number of lawsuits and the 
high charges of prosecution were the grievances which the 
assembly was called upon to remedy. 

After considering the petitions the assembly entered into 
a series of resolves, which show their earnest desire to 
denounce the riots and also to redress any grievances 
actually existing.^ Declaring their desire to hear grievances 
and secure their redress, they characterized the riots as an 
insult to government and pledged themselves to oppose 
such attacks upon government and upon private property. 
The resolute conduct of the Essex County magistrates was 
commended, and it was at this time that the governor was 
asked to proclaim the offer of a reward for the persons 
guilty in the Ogden affair. A bill was ordered to shorten 
the practise of the law and regulate the recovery of debts 
between £10 and £50. A bill for this purpose, entitled " An 
Act to provide a more effectual Remedy against excessive 
Costs in the Recovery of Debts under Fifty Pounds in this 

^N. J. A., vol. X, Ibid., p. 181. 

^ Assembly Journal, Mar. 15-19, 1770. 

^ Assembly Journal, Mar. 19, 1770. 



26l] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 261 

Colony; and for other Purposes," was passed. The gov- 
ernor expressed doubts as to the efficacy of this act when 
tried, but it was allowed by the royal officials.^ 

A similar act had been rejected by Franklin in 1769, be- 
cause he had regarded it as inadequate and injurious to the 
clerk of the Supreme Court, a royal patentee. He had also 
been opposed to it, because it had no suspending clause, and 
contained certain clauses contradictory to an act - at the 
time pending the royal approval. The governor gave as the 
condition of his assent, a repeal of the act of 1765 and the 
addition of a suspending clause to the one in question. Re- 
garding a suspending clause to a five year bill designed as 
an experiment of its utility as inexpedient, the assembly 
had asked the governor to obtain the permission of the 
crown to assent to such a bill at the next session.^ That 
such assent was obtained is not on record, and it is doubt- 
less the unusual events of the recent months that led Frank- 
lin to assent to the act for remedying excessive costs in 
1770. The later act, however, had been altered to meet the 
governor's chief objections, but doubtless did not prove as 
satisfactory as was expected.* Allinson did not think it 
necessary to print it in his collection of laws in 1775, for it 
would expire at the next assembly session and " there is 
Reason to believe it will not be revived without Altera- 
tion." ^ 

Futile attempts v^ere made to secure the passage of other 
laws during this agitation. An act for the better regulation 
of the admission of attorneys-at-law progressed only as far 

^N, J. A., vol. X, p. 198. 

*The act passed in 1765 referred to above. 

^Assembly Journal, Dec. 6, 1769- 

^A''. J. A., vol. X, p. 193. 

* Allinson, op. cit., p. 339. 



V 



262 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [262 

as its second reading, in December, 1769, and was then or- 
dered to lie on the table.' One to explain and amend a 
former act for the relief of insolvent debtors was passed in 
March, 1770, but was disallowed by the crown, June 7, 
1771.^ In 1772, the governor refused his assent to an act 
for the return of able jurors and the regulation of juries."'' 
In November, 1773, a second attempt to pass this bill was 
defeated by the governor.* 

' In the crisis just described, the abuses and evils against 
which the people complained were undoubtedly grossly ex- 
aggerated, but this made the dangers to government none 
the less real. A lack of confidence in the integrity of the 
courts was a weakening of the hands of government in a 
most vital spot. The base motives of some, added to the 
fancied or real grievances of others, encouraged a popular 
frenzy that was alarming.'' All branches of the provincial 
government acted with commendable promptness and zeal. 
The activity of the council and civil magistrates in sup- 
pressing the riots was commended by the Earl of Hills- 
borough.® The bright circumstance during this period was 
the inability of the complainants to substantiate their gen- 
eral and sweeping charges against the New Jersey Bar. 

No consideration of the personnel of the highest court 
in the province can but impress one with the variety of 
duties which its members performed in the public service. 
The early justices were not even members of the legal pro- 
fession in many cases. It was a characteristic of the period 
for one person to hold numerous offices at the same time, 

^Assembly Journal, Dec. i, 1769. ^ Ibid., Mar. 27, 1770. 

^ N. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 330. *^ Ibid., p. 404. 

'It may be noted that the riots occurred in anti-proprietary sections. 
Many lawyers were prominent proprietors. 
^JSI. J. A., vol. X, p. 198. 



263] ^^^ JUDICIAL SYSTEM 263 

and the justices were no exception. As a study of the 
personnel of the council showed, many of the councillors 
were also justices of the Supreme Court. This combina- 
tion of offices was strongly objected to by the assembly, 
chiefly because the council acted as a court of appeal, and 
it was said the same judge might sit upon a case twice. The 
position was not well taken, however, for a royal instruc- 
tion prevented any irregularity on that account. Despite 
the many complaints because of the meagre income, many 
of the ablest persons in the province sat on the Supreme 
Court bench. 

At the beginning of Governor Morris's administration, 
Robert Lettice Hooper was chief justice, John Hamilton 
second judge, and Colonel Coxe third judge. Hooper and 
Hamilton have been previously mentioned as members of 
the council. Colonel Daniel Coxe died soon after Morris 
became governor.^ He was a holder of large proprietary 
interests, whose early connections with Cornbury somewhat 
shadowed his active career in New Jersey politics. His 
appointment to the Supreme Court came in 1734. It will 
be remembered that Governor Morris commissioned his 
son, Robert Hunter Morris, as chief justice to succeed 
Hooper in 1739. 

A most interesting and delicate question arose during 
the chief-justiceship of Morris. During the year 1757 the 
chief justice made a visit to England, and in his absence 
William Aynsley was appointed to his place. The repre- 
sentation of the lords of trade resulted in the appointment 
of Aynsley " in the room of Robert Hunter Morris, Esqr. 
who has resigned." ' This was the mistake that brought 
about a most unfortunate controversy. Morris had not at 
this time resigned. 

'Field, op. cit., p. 132. 

* N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 248. 



264 THE PROVINCE OF NEW iERSEY [264 

In 1754, however, when the chief justice had accepted 
the appointment as governor of Pennsylvania, he had sent 
his resignation to the lords of trade/ This resignation 
was not accepted, or at least Morris, receiving no reply 
from the lords of trade, accepted their silence as a refusal 
to allow the resignation.^ He continued as governor of 
Pennsylvania only two years, when, upon returning to New 
Jersey, he again acted as chief justice. 

The explanation of the appointment of Aynsley is that 
the lords of trade were, in February, 1757, appointing him 
to the position, in accordance with the vacancy created by 
the resignation of Morris in 1754. Dilatoriness on the part 
of the royal officials in colonial affairs, was not unusual, 
and although this seems an extreme case, the representa- 
tion of the lords of trade had as its object simply to supplj 
the Morris vacancy.^ The appointment of Aynsley does not 
seem to have been due, as Judge Field suggests, merely ty 
the difficulties attending the transition from Belcher to Ber- 
nard in the province.* 

During Morris's absence in England in 1757, Aynsley 
came to America, and began his duties as the chief justice 
in 1758. Previous to that his mandamus to fill the office 
during the royal pleasure had been received by President 
Reading, and the commission had been published.^ The 
new chief justice was not destined to fill his honored posi- 
tion in the province for a long term. He died early in July, 
1758, his death occasioned, according to Governor Bernard, 
" by his drinking milk and water when he was Very hot on 

* Field, op. cit., p. 149. 

^N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 206. ^Ibid., p. 231. 

* Field, op. cit., p. 151. 

^ N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 136. 



265] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 265 

Wednesday last," his death having occurred the day follow- 
ing that fatal imbibing/ 

In May of the year following, one Nathaniel Jones was ap- 
pointed to succeed Aynsley on the Supreme Court bench. - 
This appointment was approved on May 31, 1759. Mean- 
while, Morris had returned to New Jersey from his trip to 
Europe and proposed to resume the chief -justiceship under 
his old patent. Bernard was in a quandary, for had not 
Morris been replaced by another? An agreement was 
reached according to which Morris would not undertake to 
resume the office and Bernard would appoint no one to suc- 
ceed Aynsley until the royal mandate was known. ^ The 
royal mandate was Jones's appointment, and Bernard, re- 
garding the agreement with Morris as terminated, asked 
the royal officials to advise him regarding his conduct, if 
Morris should oppose the claim of Mr. Jones. The lords 
asked for the reasons upon which Morris based his conduct, 
instructing Bernard meanwhile to obey the king's com- 
mands. 

The former, and as afterwards transpired the then, chief 
justice frankly stated that he wished the office because he had 
had no permission to resign.* Lack of permission he re- 
garded as a prohibition. Governor Belcher, even, had told 
him that the two offices, that of chief justice of New Jersey 
and governor of Pennsylvania, were not incompatible. In 
view of the feeling existing between Morris and Belcher at 
that time, such a statement would certainly be proof of Gov- 
ernor Belcher's charity. Morris added with modest display 
that it was not the income the office afforded which prompted 
his desire, for he took the office " rather to prevent it falling 
into Contempt than expecting any Support from it." He 

^N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 124. ^Ibid., p. 173- 

^Ibid., p. 176. *Ibid., p. 206. 



266 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [266 

wished that the office should " always be in the hands of a 
Man of independent fortune and Known Integrity." Gov- 
ernor Bernard sent Morris's explanation to the lords of 
trade, after the latter had promised the governor not to in- 
terrupt Jones in assuming the office/ 

Despite his frank confession of the fact, Morris was, of 
course, a man well suited for the office in question, and of 
great prestige and influence in the province. Whoever 
Nathaniel Jones was, he doubtless was inferior to Morris 
in ability, and was an almost absolute stranger to the peo- 
ple. It is true that he had been given a flattering reception 
at Elizabethtown in November, 1759, upon his arrival, but 
the people of that community were doubtless more opposed 
to Morris than they were in favor of Jones.^ General dis- 
satisfaction at Jones's appointment was expressed, and even 
the governor was sceptical of his ability to hold the office.' 

On the ground that he could not resist the importunities 
of the people to accept the chief-justiceship, Morris took 
his seat in the Supreme Court, intimating to Bernard that 
as the governor was about to leave the province, Morris's 
promise to him was no longer binding.* It was Bernard's 
opinion that the promise affected Mr. Jones and the lords 
of trade also, and consequently could not be so easily re- 
jected but Morris could not to advantage believe in such an 
interpretation. 

There was an interesting session of the Supreme Court of 
New Jersey held at Perth Amboy, March 18, 1760.° Chief 
Justice Morris, and Samuel Nevill, the second judge, were 

^N. J. A., vol, ix, p. 210. 

^ Morris once spoke of " the Absurdity, to say no more of his (Jones's) 
behaviour after his Arrival." N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 236. 
"tV. J. A., vol. ix, p. 211, 
*'Ibid., p. 212. ^ Ibid., p. 214. 



267] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 267 

present. The king's " trusty and well beloved " Nathaniel 
Jones was also there. He offered a commission dated Nov. 
16, 1759, appointing him chief justice and asked that it be 
read. First, however, Morris's commission under date of 
1738 was read. It frankly stated he was to hold the posi- 
tion with all its emoluments, fees and perquisites during his 
good behavior. Jones's commission appointed him " in the 
room of William Aynsley Esqr. deceas'd." He was " to 
have, hold, exercise and enjoy the said office " during the 
royal pleasure ; and with all the rights and profits that Ayns- 
ley had enjoyed. Request was made by Jones that the oath 
of office be administered to him. At his request certain 
entries from the minutes of the court were read to show 
" that William Aynsley Esqr. deceas'd Satt as chief justice." 
It seemed that Mr. Jones had confirmed his right to the 
position for which he held the royal commission. 

Morris naturally declined to pronounce judgment in the 
case and Nevill delivered the opinion. Morris's commis- 
sion, the court decided, gave him a freehold in the office, 
of which he had not legally been divested. The oath 
could not be administered to Jones, but he might prove his 
right to the office by due course of law. Thereupon Morris 
requested David Ogden and Charles Read to defend any 
action that might be brought against him. Against the de- 
cision of Judge Nevill, Governor Bernard entered a public 
protest in the king's defence.^ The lords of trade urged 
the king to refer the matter to the attorney general for his 
consideration and report proper measures in support of the 
king's " Right of Nomination Against the extraordinary 
and unprecedented claim of Mr. Morris." ^ 

Upon Governor Boone's arrival in the province, Morris 

'A^. J. A., vol. ix, p. 213. *Ibid., p. 232. 



268 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [268 

wrote him a detailed account of the dispute.^ The governor 
transmitted it to the lords of trade, mentioning that Morris 
was of the opinion that a satisfactory account of his oppo- 
sition to Jones had never reached them. The chief justice 
could have no ground for complaint now for his letter was 
laid before the king,^ who was asked for a speedy deter- 
mination of an affair producing confusion in the colony, 
difficulty to the governor and hardship to Jones. Here the 
case ended; Morris keeping his office, and Jones returning 
to England. 

In 1762 Jones petitioned Hillsborough for the chief- 
justiceship of South Carolina, which was then vacant, but 
in vain.^ It seems an unjust fate that he should not have 
been thus rewarded for the hardships he had suffered by 
his trip to the Jerseys. The expenses he had been under in 
that venture had exhausted his resources and he had in vain 
attempted to recover his lost legal practise. A remonstrance 
in his behalf was signed by four judges and sent to the Earl 
of Halifax in January, 1762.* They were " really con- 
cerned for this Poor Gentleman," and solicited Halifax's 
favor in recommending him to some office or making pro- 
vision for him. Five years later, he again met with failure 
in applying for the chief- justiceship of New York.^ In 
1768 he made application to Hillsborough for relief. It is 
difficult to appreciate the attitude taken by the home gov- 
ernment in his case. 

The commission of Robert Hunter Morris was during 
good behavior. The difficulty caused by that commission 
was doubtless one of the arguments which led the royal 

'iV. J. A., vol. ix, p. 235. ^Ibid., p. 264. 

Vdtrf., p. 342. "/(J/f/., p. 344. 

^N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc, vol. viii, p. 73. 



269] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 269 

authorities to issue at this time the additional instruction 
to the royal governors forbidding judges holding commis- 
sions under such tenure. 

After the death of Coxe and the resignation of Hamilton, 
there seems to have been a rather long interval before two 
associate justices were appointed. In notifying the lords of 
trade of Hamilton's resignation, Governor Morris men- 
tioned his appointment of Joseph Bonnell. Morris was ex- 
pecting his resignation also because of the insufficient salary 
of the associate justiceship.^ Bonnell, however, accepted 
the appointment. The governor did not at the same time 
appoint a successor to Coxe, for there was no salary, and 
he was debating the possibility of the office going to a 
Quaker. 

As Robert Hunter Morris's associates on the bench for 
the greater part of his long tenure, Richard Salter and 
Samuel Nevill occupied their positions with ability. Salter, 
a councillor at the time of his appointment, was commis- 
sioned in 1754, succeeding Charles Read.^ Nevill, who was 
at various times speaker of the assembly, was commissioned 
second judge in 1748. 

The successor of Morris as chief justice was Charles Read 
who had been an associate justice before 1754, when he re- 
signed, and again after Salter's death in 1763.* In 1763 
he had gone on circuit for Mr. Nevill, who had long been 
" rendered incapable of Business by a stroke of the Palsy." 
He had officiated as chief justice for but a few months when, 
in October, 1764, Frederick Smyth took the oaths. There 
had been opposition to Read as chief justice and this may 
have had influence in England, for as early as July, 1764, 

^Morris Papers, p. 48. 

* A''. J. A., vol. ix, p. 340. ' Ibid., p. 424. 



270 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [270 

Smyth had been appointed to the chief- justiceship by the 
king.^ Read continued to act as second judge until his 
death in 1774, when Richard Stockton took his ploce on the 
bench. FrankHn was somewhat in doubt as to Stockton's 
acceptance, but his name appears in the support bill of 1774, 
with a salary of £150.^ 

Read's appointment as chief justice created a vacancy in 
the court to which John Berrien was appointed, with the 
advice and consent of the council, in February, 1764.^ His 
commission was read in court on March 20, 1764.* He 
was a gentleman of ordinary ability, with a loose tongue. 
Smith, the historian, regarded him as " a babbling County 
Surveyor, not fit to be a deputy to any sheriff in England." 
Twice during his incumbency of the justiceship, the provin- 
cial council was bothered by complaints against him. The 
chief justice, in April, 1768, complained of having been " in 
several instances treated with great indignity by Mr. Ber- 
rien." ^ Upon investigation the council found that the 
manner of both men had been " unbecoming their Stations," 
but Berrien was more deserving of censure and reprehen- 
sion. Both were recommended to behave more suitably in 
future, not only to prevent their high offices from being dis- 
honored, but also to prevent " recourse to Measures that 
may more effectually prevent the like Complaint for the 
Future." " 

Complaints against Berrien did not come singly, for 
the week following the council's report on his controversy 
with the chief justice, the governor laid before the council 

^JV. J. A., vol. ix, p. 446, 

^Assembly Journal, Feb. 21, and Mar. 2, 1774. 

'A^. J. A., vol, xvii, p. 374. 

"^Minutes of the Supreme Court, Mar. 20, 1764. 

^N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 500. ^Ibid., p. 506. 



271] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 271 

a letter which Berrien had written to CorneHus Low, a law- 
yer in the province.^ The contents of the letter are not 
known, but the associate justice was ordered to give " his 
Reasons if any he has, for writing- a Letter of so extra- 
ordinary a nature to Mr. Low." ' After that there is no 
further mention of the case, but Berrien held his position 
on the bench until his death in 1772. The complaints made 
against him in 1768 do not seem to have injured his popu- 
larity, for in the following year he was elected to the as- 
sembly from Somerset County.^ Berrien's successor was 
David Ogden.'* 

Mention of the provincial attorneys general may well be 
made at this time. They were commissioned by the gov- 
ernor in the king's name and to hold office during pleas- 
ure.^ Joseph Warrell held this office from 1734 until 1754, 
when he asked leave to resign in order to spend the re- 
mainder of his days away from the contentions of the court- 
room. He asked that Courtlandt Skinner should be ap- 
pointed in his place.^ 

Skinner was appointed and held office during the re- 
mainder of the colonial period. The news of the change 
in this office had evidently not reached England in 1761, 
or else it was a clerical error which at that time led to the 
order in council continuing Joseph Warrell in his office of 
attorney general, at the accession of George IIL^ Having 
studied law under David Ogden, Skinner was well qualified 
for the position. His early opposition to British oppres- 
sion changed as the Revolution broke out and he supported 
the British cause. As speaker of the assembly previous 

^ N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 507. ^Ibid., p. 51 1- 

^Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 37. *'Ibid., p. 372. 

^Ibid., vol. X, p. 450. ^Ibid., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 293. 

''Ibid., vol. ix, p. 257. 



2^2 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [272 

mention of him has been made. His conduct as attorney 
general gave satisfaction to the chief executive. Belcher 
hoped he would not be supplanted in his office, for he was 
a young man of good virtue and understanding.^ Boone 
regarded his conduct as irreproachable, but saw little -or no 
value in the office he held.^ 

During the early years of royal government in New Jer- 
sey corruption and abuse marked the course of so-called 
justice. Credit must be given chiefly to Governor Hunter 
for loosening the grasp which the corrupt political ring of 
Cornbury's administration had fastened upon the judicial 
system.^ From that time the period of judicial despotism 
in New Jersey may be said to have ended, and after 1738 
complaints of the miscarriage of justice became com- 
paratively infrequent. Exception may be made in the pro- 
prietary land suits, for the defendants therein clamored 
against the undue proprietary bias of the courts. Never- 
theless this outcry was frequently unreasoning and was in- 
dulged in from ulterior motives. The right to appeal from 
the Supreme Court to the council, or to the crown, was 
rarely exercised. 

The minutes of the Supreme Court indicate that it was 
not unusual for cases to be removed from the jurisdiction of 
the court, to be referred to the determination of certain per- 
sons appointed for the purpose. Notice having been given 
to the parties concerned, the referees would meet at a desig- 
nated time and place to consider the case. The report of the 
referees was regarded as binding upon both parties and was 
in effect a judgment of the court* 

*iV. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 200. "^ Ibid., vol. ix, p. 279. 

'Tanner, op. cit., p. 480 et seq. 

"" Minutes of the Supreme Court, April 10, 1773; Thos. Ricke vs.1o\\n 
Gill. 



CHAPTER IX 

The Financial System 

In the pioneer days of which we are speaking, not the 
least of the difficulties of government was caused by finan- 
cial affairs. With difficulty do we think ourselves into the 
conditions of that early period and realize the problems 
with which the people labored. The fact that very little 
currency circulated among that scattering population made 
recourse to some other medium of exchange necessary. 
Little gold and silver was current in New Jersey, and what 
little there was is said to have come into the hands of 
farmers near New York and Pennsylvania through sales of 
wheat, and was then hoarded for the purpose of making 
land purchases.^ The ordinary medium of exchange among 
the colonists was bills of credit, so disadvantageous because 
of their fluctuating and usually deteriorated values.^ Dur- 
ing the later colonial period the expenses of government 
mounted up unusually high because of the frequent wars. 
It is of course true that these expenditures were in part, at 
least, repaid by the mother country. The now familiar 
phrase, the high cost of living, was uttered with great regu- 
larity by the officials, in their frequent demands for higher 
salaries. Questions of expenditures, taxation, and the 
issues of the bills of credit will necessarily be considered 
in this chapter. 

The support of government was an almost annual subject 

' Morris Papers, p. i66. ^ Ibid., p. 53- 

273] ^7Z 



274 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [274 

of discussion, and frequently of contention, in the history of 
the colony. The assembly successfully maintained their 
demand to unrestricted control of the colonial purse, this 
demand receiving unwilling acquiescence on the part of the 
governors and royal authorities, who never credited the 
lower house with the legal exercise of such control. The 
expense of government was either paid by the interest of 
money emitted on loan or by funds raised annually by a tax 
upon real and personal property. Salaries and incidental 
charges were granted annually, being issued upon a war- 
rant of the governor, with advice of the council and ac- 
counted for by the two treasurers to a joint committee of 
both houses of the legislature.^ Thus the assembly not only 
initiated all money bills, but also had partial charge of the 
auditing of accounts. 

The governors were especially interested in increasing 
the salaries, and in having the support of government 
granted for as long a term as possible. In both of these 
matters the assembly's interests usually ran counter to those 
of the governor. Pretending economy, the assembly was 
reluctant to increase salaries. The longer the term for 
which the support of government was granted, the greater 
would be the governor's independence upon the lower house. 
This was fully realized and action was taken accordingly. 
The pulse of an administration can usually be felt in con- 
nection with the bill for the support of government. 

The general character of one of the so-called support bills 
can best be shown from an outline of its contents.^ The 
preamble would state that the support was voted out of 
" Duty, Loyalty and Gratitude " to the crown. The sal- 
aries of the different officers were then given, and the method 

^ N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 580. 

*Nevill, Acts of the General Assembly, vol. ii, p. 287. 



275] ^^^ FINANCIAL SYSTEM 275 

of payment described. Provision was made for the pay- 
ment of any arrears to an official's executors, in case of his 
death or removal. House rent for the governor was al- 
lowed, it being necessary that he be provided " with a House 
to live in, until one shall be provided for that Purpose." 
Sixty pounds was allowed for this purpose. Separate sec- 
tions contained appropriations for circuit courts, payment 
of councillors, miscellaneous items to various persons and 
the pay of the " Members of the House of Representatives." 
It was designated from what funds the charges should be 
paid, or if necessary how the money should be raised. 

With Governor Morris's uncompromising disposition it 
was but natural that the branches of government should 
frequently be at odds regarding financial affairs. He re- 
minded his first assembly that it was incumbent upon them 
to make ample provision for the government, in return for 
the king's graciousness in granting the colony a separate 
governor.^ Nevertheless the assembly and council became 
involved in the altercation, already mentioned, over the 
question of altering the support bill. An act was passed 
for supporting the government for three years, but it was 
a disappointment to the governor, who regarded it as fear- 
fully insufficient.^ 

The contest over the bill had been so bitter that not a 
perfectly satisfactory one could be expected. The failure 
to provide for the incidental charges of government was 
certainly a defect, but the bill at least supported govern- 
ment for three years. Whether the salaries were too scant 
or not depended upon the point of view. None of the 
salaries were changed except the governor's, which was in- 
creased from £500 to £1,000 and house rent. The earlier 
amount, it should be remembered, was paid to the ap- 

^ N. J. A., vol. XV, p. 2. ^ Ibid., p. 79. 



276 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [276 

pointee who acted as governor of New York also. The 
chief justice received £150, while the two associate Supreme 
Court justices, the attorney general, and the treasurers re- 
ceived £40 each/ 

Morris said that the assembly thought they had done 
wonders, but in his opinion the officers of government were 
so " scantily provided for that they can scarce perform the 
services required of them." ^ The lords of trade sympa- 
thized with Morris because the people were no more grateful 
to their sovereign " for His Gracious Condescension to their 
Request, in granting them a Separate Governor." ^ It is 
true that Morris might reasonably have expected a salary 
more than double that which was given to officials who 
rarely had come into the province, and troubled themselves 
too little about its affairs. 

The assembly later found that a mistake had been made 
in omitting the provision for contingent charges from the 
support bill, and in 1740 a bill for the purpose was intro- 
duced. Opposition to it, voiced chiefly by the governor's 
son in the council, prevented its passage. Young Morris 
protested because it empowered the assembly to appoint the 
printers of the laws, it did not make suitable provision for 
the proper fulfilment of the duties of the clerk of the coun- 
cil, it made no provision for incidental charges arising from 
unforeseen accidents, and because the council had the power 
to " amend, alter, or begin any bill for the disposition of the 
public money." * Inasmuch as there does not seem to have 
been any attempt to amend this particular bill in the council, 
Morris's last protest was simply a flaunt at the assembly. 

^ JV. J. A., vol. XV, p. III. The salary of the chief justice was later 
decreased to ^100. 
^ Ibid., vol. vi, p. 68. 
* Morris Papers, p. 48. ^ N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 165. 



277] ^^^ FINANCIAL SYSTEM 277 

The bill for the support of government having expired 
when the assembly met in October, 1741, the governor 
urged them to continue the support and remedy their former 
mistake of neglecting to provide for the incidental charges 
of government/ In order that qualified men should accept 
positions the officers of government should be amply paid. 
The assembly did not see fit to increase the salaries, hov^- 
ever, and granted the support for only one year. Morris 
was not discouraged, and flattered himself at having chosen 
" the softest way of treating them," meaning that he was 
less contentious with them than usual.^ He had hopes of 
better success in the next session. At the next session he 
met with as much success, but no more, another support act 
being passed for only one year.^ 

In the session beginning in October, 1743, the assembly 
and governor were on bad terms, but the support bill was 
as usual passed. His Excellency again reminded the repre- 
sentatives, that they had promised to support the added 
expenses of the government when they had a separate gov- 
ernor and significantly promised his assent to any laws 
beneficial to the public.^ What piqued the governor at this 
session was that the assembly postponed sending the sup- 
port bill to him for his signature, until they were positive 
no further business was to be transacted. To suffer for 
their conduct, they were read a long lecture by the gov- 
ernor about their unwarranted behavior.^ The support bill 
granted the usual salaries for a year. 

The unusually acute situation that existed in the legis- 
lative sessions of 1745, owing to the assembly's efforts to 
pass their pet measure for the emission of £40,000 in bills 

^N. J. A., vol. XV, p. 200. ''Morris Papers, p. i39- 

^ N. J. A., vol. XV, pp. 246, 257. *'Ibid., p. 279. 

^Ibid., p. 315. 



278 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [278 

of credit, their refusal to confer with the council on the 
militia bill, and their order to print the fee bill, left the gov- 
ernment unsupported/ With frankness the assembly asked 
the governor to pass their bills before action was taken 
upon the support bill. Morris took this as a threat that if 
he refused his assent to the bills, " they would not support, 
or as they call it, grant a support for the government." A 
support bill was prepared but the salaries were halved, be- 
cause, as the assembly resolved, " while Things remain in 
this Situation the Colony is not in a Condition to support 
Government so largely as they have done for some years 
past." ^ Of course the council refused assent to such a bill, 
and at the last mention of it in the records it was under the 
council's consideration.^ This method threw the blame for 
the non-support of the government upon the governor and 
council. 

The governor's complaint to the lords of trade was drawn 
out to even greater length than usual. The encroachments 
of assemblies should be stopped and they should be " re- 
duced to such proper and legall bounds as is consistent with 
his Majestie's Prerogative and their dependance." * He 
sug-gested that all money in future raised should be de- 
clared to be given to the king, to be by him applied for an}?- 
use and in any manner that he saw fit. The king was to 
delegate the governor with the advice of his council to 
direct the expenditures. Morris, as a royal official, had 
evidently lost the ability to read the signs of the times. 

In 1746 the efforts to have the government supported 
were still unsuccessful. The beginning of the session was 

' Morris Papers, p. 213. 

^ N. J. A., vol. XV, p. 372. ^Ibid., p. 373. 

* Morris Papers, p. 225. 



279] ^^^ FINANCIAL SYSTEM 279 

not without an appearance of harmony, and gave hope that 
the desired end might be accompHshed. In a brief message, 
on March 4th, the governor remarked that it was unneces- 
sary to call attention to the fact that the support had long 
since expired/ The house expressed willingness to supply 
the deficiency and pay for the necessary expenses of govern- 
ment.^ In May the governor promised to assent to the 
Militia Act and the act for bringing actions of less than 
£15 into the Supreme Court, if support would be granted 
to the government.^ Because the treasury was low, re- 
plied the assembly, the governor would be given £500 a 
year for two years, but the other salaries would be as usual. 
An inducement of £1,000 extra, however, was offered to 
the governor if he would assent to the act for the emission 
of £40,000 in bills of credit, and it should receive the royal 
approval.* Enraged, the governor refused to pass the bills 
unless the government was supported as amply as here- 
tofore. There was no possibility of agreement, and a sup- 
port bill was not passed. This was the last contest between 
Morris and the legislature. 

Although Governor Belcher boasted that holding the af- 
fection of the people afforded him more satisfaction than 
a " bigger Salary," ^ he continually complained of his in- 
sufficient remuneration. He characterized the assembly as 
tolerably honest but stingy.** Contests between the assembly 
and council, chiefly growing out of the land disturbances, 
and the methods of settling the tax question upon the sev- 
eral counties, interfered with the regular support of govern- 
ment during this administration, a circumstance which was 

^ Assembly Journal, Mar. 4, 1746. "^ Ibid., May 6, 1746. 

^ Ibid., Mar. 11, 1746. ^ Assembly Journal, May 7, 1746. 

^ Belcher Papers, Mar. 14, 1748. 
^A''. J. A., vol. vii, p. 106. 



28'0 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [280 

Belcher's misfortune rather than his fault. In 1750 he 
urged upon the members of his family in New England to 
sell some of his property there, in order that he might ob- 
tain subsistence/ Miscreant gossipers, however, had told 
of the great emoluments of his ofBce, and Belcher, worried 
at such falsifications, told his family that however much he 
might wish such reports to be true " they are false and 
Vile." ^ 

The first assembly to meet Belcher did not change the 
amount of the salaries. The support bill of 1748 provided 
for but one year's support, although Belcher had urged a 
fixed yearly salary suitable to the dignity of the office. 
This was of course refused, the assembly declaring the 
settlement as ample as formerly and telling the governor to 
expect nothing more.^ This bill was saved from defeat 
only by the withdrawal of the council's claim to amend a 
money bill. Disagreement between the branches of the 
legislature regarding the quotas bill, prevented the support 
of government in 1750. All the governor's entreaties that 
the assembly should take the next best method to support 
the government, if it could not be done in the way they 
thought best, were to no purpose, and the assembly was 
dissolved.* In this respect, at least, this was a successful ex- 
pedient, for at the next session, a two-year support act was 
passed.^ 

The harmony was of short duration, however, for the 
mooted question of council amendments to a money bill 
brought disagreement. Additional friction was fostered 
by the new claim of the assembly to submit acts to the gov- 
ernor in person, even after the concurrence of the council 

^ Belcher Papers , Nov. 15, 1750. ^ Ibid., Feb. i, 1751, 

^ Assembly Journal, Feb. 17, 1748. 

*N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 583. ^Ibid., p. 598. 



28l] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 281 

had been refused.' Both the governor and the council 
characterized this claim as irregular.^ That proved to be 
the last disagreement upon this subject during this admin- 
istration, and thereafter annual support bills were regularly 
passed. 

From 1 75 1 to 1757 the province was spared the expense 
of a chief justice, because of Morris's absence. Nevill per- 
formed the extra services during this period, and in Sep- 
tember, 1 75 1, petitioned the assembly for the first time for 
extra recompense.^ Receiving no relief, the request was 
repeated in January, 1752. Thereupon, he was allowed six 
pounds for each court he attended during the absence of the 
chief justice.^ During this period the officers of govern- 
ment, except the attorney general, were gratified with no 
salary increases. The attorney general suffered a ten-pound 
decrease. 

Government was supported in the usual way during the 
rapid changes of the next three administrations. It was 
customary upon the accession of a new governor to allow 
him £500 extra to aid in defraying his transportation and 
other expenses. The additional amount was given to Ber- 
nard, but when Boone succeeded after such a short interval, 
it was only the affirmative vote of the speaker that saved 
the sum for him. 

Although Governor Franklin frankly confessed to the 
lords of trade that he had no hope of having the salaries 
settled permanently, he urged it upon his first assembly.^ 
The representatives were told that the necessaries of life 
had increased threefold in the last seven years and the sal- 
aries were inadequate.® They responded to the cost of liv- 

' N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 222 et seq. ^ Ibid., vol. vii, p. 625. 

^Assembly Journal, Sept. 17, 1751. * Ibid., Jan. 30, 1752. 

^N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 384. ^Ibid.. p. 384- 



282 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [282 

ing argument by raising the governor's salary to £1,200, the 
chief justice's to £150, and the associate justice's to £50. 
The usual extra £500 for expenses in taking up the admin- 
istration was refused to Franklin, and the royal instruction 
urging permanent salaries was ignored. Scarcely any diffi- 
culty was experienced in passing the support bills during 
this administration, but demands for higher salaries were 
frequent and insistent, even if to no effect. 

In 1765 the inhabitants of certain islands in the Delaware 
River petitioned to be annexed to New Jersey. These 
islands, being outside of the jurisdiction of the royal courts, 
sheltered many malefactors, which circumstances rendered 
the holding of land titles there insecure.^ For the protection 
of their land titles the inhabitants were willing to pay large 
quit rents to the crown. Here Franklin saw a grand op- 
portunity. The quit rents might be sufficient to support the 
entire civil establishment of the province! In place of in- 
sufficient salaries, and dependence upon the assembly, Frank- 
lin had visions of bountiful salaries and freedom from 
domineering assemblies. He urged upon the royal Secre- 
tary of State the annexation of the islands to New Jersey 
in order that sufficient revenue might be had for the in- 
crease of salaries.^ Secretary Conway told the governor 
that the petition of the possessors of the islands of the Dela- 
ware River would receive the consideration due its im- 
portance.^ Doubtless Franklin thought its importance was 
greatly underestimated, for his scheme was not carried into 
effect. 

In 1769 the governor was unsuccessful in his attempt to 
have the assembly appropriate part of the interest money 
of the bill for emitting £100,000 in bills of credit in order to 
make more proper provision for the officers of gvernment* 

^N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 488. *Ibid., p. 488. 

^ Ibid., p. 492. ^ Ibid., vol. x, p. 144. 



283] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 283 

The assembly might be brought to compUance, FrankHn 
told the royal officials, if this act was disallowed, and it 
was specified that royal assent would be given to an act 
which set aside part of the interest money for the support 
of the government and provided for each officer. 

The £100,000 bill of 1769 was disallowed, but for other 
reasons. Undaunted, the governor kept recommending sal- 
ary increases with commendable patience. In 1773 his 
suggestion that the crown might pay the salaries out of 
royal revenues, thereby lessening the dependence of the 
royal officials upon the lower house, ruffled the assembly not 
at all. They determined to cross no bridge before they 
came to it. Despite his father's disapproval of his desire 
for added salary as likely to embroil him with the people, 
the younger Franklin asked Lord Dartmouth, in 1773, 
either for an increase in salary or promotion to a better 
government.^ Although Dartmouth promised his aid in the 
matter, it was never forthcoming.^ 

The governor was not alone in requesting added com- 
pensation for public service, during this period. Chief 
Justice Smyth was particularly insistent. Smyth joined 
with Franklin in asking for an allowance from the king's 
revenue, in order to be more independent of the legisla- 
ture.^ In 1768 he declared that he had continued in office al- 
most wholly at his private expense, but had continually been 
expecting a salary from England.* The governor recom- 
mended that Smyth's salary be increased, and the chief 
justice sent a memorial to the assembly, but no change was 
made.^ In 1772 Smyth was allowed a salary from the 
crown, and ordered to accept of no further allowance from 
the assembly.* 

^ N.J.A., vol. X, p. 390, note, p. 393. ''Ibid., p. 401. 

' Ibid. , vol. ix, p. 489. * Ibid. , vol. x, p. 62. 

^ Assembly Journal, June 16, 1766. ^N.J.A., vol. x, p. 361. 



284 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [284 

Attorney General Skinner sent a memorial to Lord Dart- 
mouth in 1772, requesting the latter's favor in obtaining a 
royal salary/ For eighteen years this gentleman had been 
inadequately compensated, according to his petition, which 
was seconded also by the governor." Attorneys general 
in other colonies had been the recipients of salaries from 
the king, and Skinner craved a like favor. During the re- 
maining years of the colonial establishment, he annually 
received no more than his £30, plus fees. 

Requests for better pay were repeated down to the end 
of the colonial period. In 1775 the £100,000 act, passed 
by the legislature the previous year, received the royal ap- 
proval.^ As a return for this favor, the king urged that 
the government be more liberally supported for the period 
of the existence of the loan. In response to requests from 
the governor, the assembly declared it not beneficial to 
grant salaries for a longer period than usual, and inex- 
pedient to erect a building for the legislature. The usual 
support only was granted. Franklin regretted their remiss- 
ness, and promised Dartmouth to allow the assembly at 
their next session an opportunity to retrieve for past ne- 
glect. But there was not another session of the royal colo- 
nial legislature of New Jersey. The last appropriation act 
had provided for support until October, 1776, but the royal 
government in New Jersey was non-existent months before 
that date. 

During the later colonial period it became habit with 
the people to protest that their regular taxes for govern- 
ment were burdensome. This was ever the excuse pleaded 
when they did not wish to grant a royal requisition for the 
support of royal troops. Actually the taxes were small 

^N. J. A., vol. X, p. 383. ^Ibid., p. 389. 

^ Assembly Journal, Nov. 22, 1775. 



285] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 285 

indeed, and the methods of raising them simple/ The 
amount to be raised for the support of government at no 
time exceeded £3,000 a year, and was levied upon property 
and land. Minimum and maximum rates v^^ere prescribed 
for different properties, between which limits rates might 
be assessed at the discretion of the assessors. 

Ordering that taxes should be " assessed, levied and 
raised on the several Inhabitants of this Colony, for the 
time being, their Lands and Tenements, Goods and Chat- 
tels," by legislative enactment the particular classes of peo- 
ple and property, with the rates, were enumerated.^ In one 
long list, without division or proper classification, the tax- 
able classes were given, such as householders, merchants 
and shopkeepers, saw-mills, grist-mills, fulling-mills, fur- 
naces, forges, glass-houses, distilleries, ferries, single men 
working for hire, servants and slaves, cattle, and particular 
kinds of vehicles, " wagons, the bodies of which hang on 
springs," being separately enumerated. Profitable tracts of 
land held by deed, patent or survey were to be valued at the 
discretion of the assessors, the minimum and maximum 
valuation per hundred acres varying in the different coun- 
ties. Acts to settle the quotas were passed from time to 
time, as the circumstances of the colony altered, and, as 
has been seen, caused much contention and bitterness be- 
tween council and assembly. 

During this period the methods of colonial taxation re- ] 
mained essentially without change. In each county there 
was an assessor and a collector for raising taxes. The 
county collector received the money raised by the town col- 
lectors, and transmitted it to the provincial treasurer, or 

' For the subject of taxes, see Tanner, op. cit., p. SiQ et seq.\ Parker, 
Taxes and Money in New Jersey before the Revolution, in N. J. Hist. 
Sac. Proc, series ii, vol. vii, p. 150. 

'Allinson, op. cit., p. Z^T. 



286 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [286 

paid it according to the directions of the justices and free- 
holders if it was for county purposes.^ In 1740 an act was 
passed which regulated the election of the county collectors. 
It enabled the freeholders in conjunction with three justices 
of the peace to choose such collectors, and required the per- 
sons elected to render an account to the justices and free- 
holders upon demand. A penalty was of course provided 
for neglect in this matter. 

Appeals might be taken by any who felt aggrieved by 
an assessment. The method of appeal was altered by an 
act of October, 1770.^ Jurisdiction in such cases was no 
longer to be held by justices of the peace, but appeal could 
be taken to the next Court of General Quarter Sessions of 
the Peace of the particular county. Judgments of this court 
were to be final. The former method of appeal had been 
found inconvenient and unsatisfactory. 

In the quotas act of 1769 there was provision for the 
taxation of " Hawkers, Pedlers, or petty chapmen." ^ This 
was in accordance with an act for the purpose passed 
in July, 1740. In the opinion of the assembly, these stroll- 
ing merchants reaped a harvest without contributing any- 
thing to the revenue. Most of the venders were non-resi- 
dents. Peddlers were henceforth to be required to pay a tax 
to the overseers of the poor in each county in which they 
offered their wares for sale. The hawkers were graded and 
taxed accordingly, if traveling with a cart ten shillings, with 
a horse six shillings, on foot three shillings yearly. The 
overseer's receipt was in effect the peddler's license to do 
business. The money received was to be applied by the 
overseer for the relief of the poor. 

The people, of course, had other public obligations to 

' Allinson, op. cit., p. 115. "^ Ibid., p. 341. 

^Ibid., p. 112. 



287] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 287 

meet aside from those imposed by the regular act for pro- 
vincial support. Although these were for county or local 
purposes, they were nevertheless levied by the provincial 
assembly. After the enactment of a law, to meet some local 
need, the money for the purpose was levied in the usual 
manner, and expended by the persons authorized by the act, 
frequently the justices of the peace. The objects for which 
such local taxes were raised included the laying-out of high- 
ways, the building of jails and court-houses, and the con- 
struction and repairs of bridges. The inhabitants were also 
liable for a slight tax for the relief of the poor of the com- 
munity. 

Somewhat different in scope and purpose were measures 
which laid duties upon certain articles of commerce. As 
early as Hunter's administration, attempts had been made 
by means of export duties on staves to preserve timber.^ 
In 1743 another act for the same purpose was passed, ap- 
plying to East Jersey.^ A duty was laid upon logs or timber 
exported to any of the other colonies. An exception was 
made, however, in the case of firewood less than four feet 
in length. The early act imposing a duty on pipe and hogs- 
head staves was continued throughout the colonial period, 
but was altered from time to time. It was finally reenacted 
for seven years, in December, 1771, with increased penal- 
ties, and certain modifications in the judicial procedure 
under the act to remedy the defects shown by experience.' 
There was an article also which exempted the parties to the 
Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery from the operation of the 
act. 

It was during the administration of Hunter also that a 
duty had first been laid upon slaves in the colony.* After 

'Tanner, op. cit., p. 532. 'Allinson, op. cit., p. 134. 

^Ibid., p. 354. ^Ibid., p. 31. 



288 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [288 

the expiration of this early act in 1721, except for un- 
successful attempts under Morris to pass a similar meas- 
ure/ the subject was not again brought before the legis- 
lature until 1 76 1. A bill laying a duty upon the importa- 
tion of negroes into the province was dropped at that time 
after it had passed the assembly, because it conflicted with 
one of Governor Hardy's instructions.^ In September, 
1762, after sundry amendments, " An Act for laying a Duty 
upon Negroes and Mulatto slaves imported into this Pro- 
vince " was passed, gaining the governor's consent only 
when a suspending clause was added.^ This measure was 
peculiar in that the import duty in the eastern division was 
but forty shillings, while that in the western division was 
six pounds.* This divergence was due to the fact that 
New York had a low import duty of but two pounds, while 
Pennsylvania had a high ten-pound tax upon all slaves. 
While the lords of trade had no objection to the principle 
of the bill, they regarded the provisions requiring the pay- 
ment of the duty by the importer, and providing for a re- 
servation of part of the duty in case of re-exportation as 
incompatible with the governor's instructions.^ The bill 
was not laid before the King. 

The objections to the former act were obviated by the 
" Act for laying a Duty on the Purchasers of Slaves im- 
ported into this Colony," passed in November, 1769.® A 
duty of fifteen pounds, proclamation money, for each slave 
was imposed, payable within ten days after the purchase. 
The county collectors were ordered to account for and pay 
the duties to the provincial treasurer, and all fines result- 

^N. J. A., vol. XV, pp. 30, 50, 343, 348. 

^ Ibid., vol. ix, p. 345. ^ Ibid., p. 382. 

* Allinson, op. cit., p. 253. 

^N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 447. 

®Allinson, op. cit., p. 315. 



289] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 289 

ing from the act were to be applied to the support of gov- 
ernment. The act was Hmited to ten years. 

In 1 716 an avowed excise tax was levied but this meas- 
ure was allowed to expire at the end of the five year limi- 
tation. To gain the same end, the taverns were more care- 
fully regulated, and tavernkeepers were obliged to pay a 
yearly assessment fee in return for their license.^ By an 
act of 1743 a duty was laid upon rum and wines which 
were not imported directly from the British West Indies." 
This was of course not a direct excise duty, but was simply 
designed to encourage the importation of rum from the 
West Indies. 

The simple conditions under which the people of that 
time lived made the development of any elaborate system of 
taxation as unnecessary as it was impossible. Their con- 
scious and evident desire was to distribute the burdens of 
providing for the public expenditures as equably as pos- 
sible. Whatever in their estimation could be with certainty 
and propriety taxed was assessed. It is doubtless true that 
the people were not tax-burdened. Governor Franklin be- 
lieved that the Jerseymen had less cause to complain of ex- 
cessive taxation than almost any of the other English At- 
lantic coast colonies. 

The issue of bills of credit is a subject closely related to 
that of taxation. The colonists well knew that the home 
authorities looked with suspicion upon the issuance of paper 
money, but they excused their persistence in demanding 
permission to strike bills of credit, because of the lack of a 
circulating medium. It is to the honor of New Jersey that, 
notwithstanding the enormous sums, which were issued in 
paper bills, the emissions were always regularly and properly 
conducted. 

'Allinson, op. cit., p. loi. ^ Ibid., p. 125. 



290 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [290 

In 1740 an additional instruction was sent to the gov- 
ernors directing that the act of the sixth of Anne " for 
ascertaining the Rates of foreign Coins in her Majesty's 
Plantations in America " should be strictly observed and 
executed.^ Because it had not been duly observed many 
illegal practises were declared to have grown up. The gov- 
ernors were further ordered to pay strict obedience to a 
former instruction which forbade their assent to any act 
whereby bills of credit were issued in lieu of money, unless 
there was a suspending clause to the act. Governor Morris 
announced by a public proclamation in January, 1741, that 
the act of Anne referred to in the additional instruction 
would be punctually and strictly enforced.^ 

The problem was difficult. The lords of trade asked the 
governors to prepare statements of accounts as to the paper 
money, and to give their opinions upon the knotty subject.^ 
This brought few results and the lords of trade confessed 
that they could lay no adequate proposition before the 
House of Commons for redeeming the bills of credit. Gov- 
ernor Morris sought the council's advice in New Jersey, 
but they had observed no evil consequences of paper money 
in their colony, and promised to submit to any remedy 
recommended by Parliament, if that honorable body was 
convinced of the existence of hamiful irregularities.* 

As for a remedy or a substitute Governor Morris had none. 
He reported at length to the lords of trade upon currency 
in New Jersey, but bluntly wrote, " Where Gold and Silver 
is wanting that it is necessary there should be something to 
pass current as medium of trade in Lieu of it seems to me 
evident." ^ Even so, the lords of trade hoped for a day 

^N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 94. "^ Ibid., p. 117. 

^ Ibid., p. 122. ^Ibid., vol. xv, p. 194. 

^ Ibid., vol. vi, p. 137. 



291] • THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 291 

with no paper bills of credit, and urged Morris to care for 
the punctual redemption of the outstanding bills/ 

In July, 1740, an act was passed making £2,000 current 
in bills of credit to provision and transport troops for an in- 
tended expedition to the West Indies," but the people were 
sending petitions to the assembly for an emission to relieve 
their necessitous condition.^ For the latter purpose a bill 
was introduced, in November, 1742, for striking £40,000 
in bills of credit.* Governor Morris, however, rejected it, 
thereby gaining the approbation of the lords of trade, ^ and 
retaining the enmity of the colonists. The measure again 
passed the assembly, in October, 1743, but was tabled in the 
council.^ 

It was in the following year that the lack of harmony 
between the branches of the legislature became most acute, 
and the council rejected some of the assembly's favorite 
measures, among them another bill for the emission of 
£40,000 in paper money. The lower house believed that 
Morris had unduly influenced the council, but the governor 
protested that he neither directly nor indirectly sought to 
influence any councillor.'^ Complaining that the assembly 
had resorted to the tricky subterfuge of declaring the in- 
tention, in the preamble of the bill, of appropriating part 
of the money to be raised for building a house for the gov- 
ernor and for the assembly and council meetings, but actu- 
ally making no appropriation in the bill for these laudable 
purposes, the council opposed the measure. Nor was this 
the single ground of opposition. The council, at this time, 

^JV. J. A., vol. XV, p. 241. 

'Allinson, op. cit., p. 120. 

^ Assembly Journal, May, 1740. 

*A^. J. A., vol. XV, p. 253. 

^Ibid., vol. vii, p. 142. ^ Ibid., vol. xv, p. 284. 

"^Morris Papers, p. 229. 



292 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [292 

with its membership practically the same, reversed its 
former position, and went on record as opposed in principle 
to the emission of bills of credit.^ Unreasonable and of 
fatal consequence to the people were such emissions, in the 
opinion of the council at this time. That the governor did 
not consciously attempt to convert any of the members of 
his council to his own views upon this subject may be true, 
but his well-known opposition to the measure and the acri- 
mony then existing between the branches of the legislature, 
without doubt exerted great influence upon the opinions of 
the upper house. 

At the opening of the session in April, 1745, Morris 
censured the assembly for attempting to pass a paper money 
bill, while an act was pending in the British Parliament, 
which if passed, would affect the colonial paper currency.* 
The assembly's retort was that inasmuch as their bill had 
a suspending clause it was in the nature of a petition to the 
king. The act of Parliament to which the governor re- 
ferred was to prevent the issue of bills of credit in the 
colonies to be legal tender in payment for money. ^ The 
assembly resolved unanimously that this measure, if en- 
acted, would not only be an encroachment upon the funda- 
mental constitution of this colony, and the concessions made 
to the first settlers thereof, but would also be destructive 
of the " liberties and properties of his Majesty's subjects." * 
Partridge was ordered to oppose it vigorously. 

Petitions were again sent to the assembly early in 1746, 
urging the necessity for an added emission of paper money, 
and the assembly resolved to have another bill introduced. ^ 
An inducement of £1,000 was to be offered to the governor 

^ N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 220. ^ Ibid., vol. xv, p. 393. 

^ Assembly Journal, Nov, 9, 1744. *'Ibid., Nov. 9, 1744. 
''Ibid., Mar. 12, 1746. 



293] ^^^ FINANCIAL SYSTEM 293 

for his assent, provided the king's assent was subsequently 
obtained/ Mutual suspicion prevented any agreement be- 
tween the governor and assembly, so that the plan failed. 

At this juncture President Hamilton assumed the ad- 
ministration, owing to the death of Governor Morris. Dur- 
ing Hamilton's brief administration, £11,850 in bills of 
credit was raised for defraying the expenses of five com- 
panies of Jerseymen in the Canadian expedition." It was 
confidently expected that the colony would be reimbursed 
for the funds thus expended. 

But willingness to contribute to the supply of troops for 
expeditions against the enemy increased belief in New Jer- 
sey in the justice of the demand for more paper money. 
Partridge petitioned the king in 1746 that in the instruc- 
tions of the newly-appointed governor there should be an 
instruction of leave for passing the bill to emit £40,000 in 
bills of credit.^ Inasmuch as the New Jersey assembly had 
not formally authorized the petition, it may have been made 
at the request of Belcher, who had not at the time sailed 
for America. The fact that the agent did not have specific 
authority from the New Jersey legislature was given by the 
lords of trade in their representation to the king as the 
reason for not complying with the petition.* 

Belcher's position with regard to the striking of bills of 
credit was different from that of his predecessor, and when 
the favorite £40,000 act was brought before him with a sus- 
pending clause it received his assent.^ He urged the home 
authorities to confirm it because the New Jersey paper 
currency had been superior to that of the other provinces 

^ Assembly Journal, May 7, 1746. 

'Allinson, op. cit., p. 147. 

^ N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 361. *■ Ibid., vol. vi, p. 433- 

^ Assembly Journal, Feb. 18, 1747. 



294 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [294 

and the treasury was empty/ Representations were made 
against the bill in England, and the governor was required 
to send over an exact account of the condition of paper 
money in New Jersey." The report which Belcher sub- 
mitted showed that all the outstanding bills would be re- 
deemed by 1753, only half of the last emission, that of 1735, 
still remaining outstanding.^ Governed by the same wise 
and successful principles as the last act of emission, the 
measure now submitted was, according to Belcher, worthy 
of confirmation. No amount of argument on the part of 
the governor could overcome the hostility of the English 
officials to paper money, in addition to the influence of Bel- 
cher's opponents at the court. The act was accordingly dis- 
allowed in November, 1749.* 

Four years elapsed before the paper money question was 
again seriously considered. In response to a suggestion 
from the governor, the assembly, in May, 1753, appointed 
Messrs. Wood, Learning and Spicer, a committee to in- 
vestigate and report upon the condition of the paper money. ^ 
Their opinion was unanimous in favor of the absolute neces- 
sity of a further emission. No dependence could be placed 
upon foreign specie ; the balance of trade was in favor of the 
British merchants; government had long since been sup- 
ported by public taxes from public funds; and the province 
groaned under a heavy debt. With paper money the in- 
terest of which could be applied to the public relief, the 
just debts could be discharged with the foreign specie, 
otherwise hoarded. The argument, too, so prominent a 
decade or two later, was advanced, that deprived of a suffi- 
cient medium of exchange, domestic manufactures would be 

^ Belcher Papers , April 22, 1748. 

*A^. J. A., vol. vii, p, 174. ^ Ibid., p. 246. 

*Allinson, op. cit., p. 172. 

^Assembly Journal, May 23, 1753. 



295] ^^^ FINANCIAL SYSTEM 295 

improved and developed to the injury of British merchants. 
This report was a clear and strong statement of the colonial 
viewpoint. 

Having considered this report, the assembly resolved to 
petition the crown for a new emission of paper money, and 
to redeem the outstanding £15,302 in bills made current 
during the late war by levying provincial taxes. ^ The coun- 
cil refused to join with the assembly in the proposed peti- 
tion.^ In order that New Jersey might redeem the bills of 
credit made for the king's service in the late war, support 
the government, and aid the merchants themselves, the as- 
sembly asked the king to assent to a £60,000 emission.^ 

Admitting that a moderate quantity of such bills, properly 
secured, would be advantageous to a trading community, 
the lords of trade recommended a royal instruction in favor 
of the New Jersey petition, provided the new bills should 
not be declared a legal tender in payment of debts, and that 
the accruing interest should be appropriated to the con- 
tingent services of the government.'* An insurrection was 
accordingly sent to the governor, conformable to the lords' 
sentiments, and in addition forbidding the governor's assent 
to any new emission until the bill had been transmitted for 
the royal approval.^ 

New Jersey assemblies had ever regarded it as axiomatic 
that bills of credit were useless, if they could not pass as 
legal tender. Their opinion was not changed by any num- 
ber of royal instructions. Even the council now believed 
that the bills must necessarily be lawful tender for the pay- 
ment of debts.^ A bill was accordingly drafted similar to 

^ Assembly Journal, May 30, June 21, 1753. 

^ N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 407. ^ Ibid., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 183. 

* Ibid., pt. i, p. 196. '' Assembly Journal, Oct. 7, 1754. 

^N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 487. 



296 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [296 

former acts, and a petition prepared, setting forth that if 
the bills were not a legal tender, the good purposes of the 
measure would be defeated/ The emission was for £70,- 
000, the £10,000 in excess of what had previously been re- 
quested, being for the aid of the neighboring colonies in 
the contest against the French. 

The draft of this bill was submitted to the royal authori- 
ties, who were urged to give the governor authority to 
assent to it, if passed. Belcher suggested that a clause 
should be added to obligate the province for any deficiency 
caused by the depreciation of the bills.^ In a lengthy 
memorial, Partridge urged that consent be given to the 
passage of the measure.^ As the proposed bill violated the 
recent royal instruction in the two most essential features, 
the recommendation of the lords of trade was improbable.* 
In the summer of 1755, Belcher was notified that the bill 
was inconsistent with the royal instruction, and could not 
properly be approved.^ 

Although the province had again failed to obtain finan- 
cial relief upon the terms that were desired, during the next 
succeeding years there were numerous emissions to provide 
for the expenses of the Fourth Intercolonial War. These 
emissions were all made conformable to the act of the 6th of 
Anne, and the bills were to be legal tender only to the 
province. The assembly had refused to contribute supplies 
with which to resist the French in 1754, because of the re- 
jection of their bills of credit proposition, but with the out- 
break of the war in earnest, with splendid zeal they fur- 
nished both men and money. In rapid succession came the 
emissions, £15,000 in April, 1755, for the expedition to 

^ N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 14. 

^ Ibid., pt. ii, p. 72. ^Ihid., p. 95. 

*Ibid., p. 100. ^Ibid., p. 124, 



297] ^^^ FINANCIAL SYSTEM 297 

Crown Point/ another £15,000 in August of the same year 
for the supply of Peter Schuyler's army," and £10,000 in 
December for the defence of the frontiers.^ In June, 1756, 
£17,500 was made current for the further supply of the 
troops under Colonel Schuyler and the defence of the fron- 
tiers;* in March, 1757, an additional £10,000,^ and in Oc- 
tober, 1757, a bill for the emission of £30,000 for the use of 
the king's service in the war was passed." A seventh emis- 
sion followed in April, 1758, by which £50,000 was ordered 
struck to augment the New Jersey regiment to one thousand 
men for the campaign of 1758, to which was added £10,000 
in August for supporting 150 men on the frontiers.^ To 
defray the expenses of a thousand men in 1759, a £50,000 
emission was ordered, and in 1760 for the same purpose 
£45,000.^ Thus within five years there had been ten emis- 
sions and a total of £252,500 was struck in bills of credit! 
By subsequent emissions of £25,000 in 1761, £30,000 in 
1762, £10,000 in 1763 and £25,000 in 1764, New Jersey's 
grand total of money raised for the war was £342,500. 

The manner in which the particular amounts making up 
this large sum were emitted was practically the same. The 
tender of the bills was declared to be as good and effectual 
in law as any other current coin in the province. Counter- 
feiting them was to be punishable by death. The quotas 
to be annually assessed were of course prescribed, as also 
the time during which the particular emissions were to be 
current before redemption. Likewise, the details regarding 
the signing and printing of the bills, and other necessary 
matters were as usual given in the bill. 

'Nevill, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 32. *Ibid., p. 50. 

^Ibid., p. 75. "Ibid., p. 92. 

^Ibid., p. 118. ^Ibid., p. 146. 

''Ibid., pp. 17s, 203. ^ Ibid., pp. 253, 279. 



298 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [298 

But after such an enthusiastic and rapid expenditure of 
money, there came an inevitable aftermath. With every 
new emission the taxes for the future years increased. The 
old question v^as immediately revived. Should the govern- 
ment be supported by taxes levied upon the properties of 
the colonists; or should more bills of credit be loaned, the 
interest of which would support the government? The 
table of the assembly became buried with petitions praying 
the emission of additional paper money.^ The assembly re- 
garded more paper money as the remedy which would alle- 
viate the grievous complaints of their constituents," and 
passed a bill for the emission of £100,000.^ 
^ Inasmuch as the money was to be made a legal tender 
and the assembly refused to add a suspending clause to the 
act, even a far less cautious governor than Franklin would 
have hesitated to sign the measure. He refused his assent 
because it did not conform to his instructions. But even 
had the governor's assent been obtained, the lords of trade 
would have effectually blocked the bill. At this time, they 
were more opposed than formerly to declaring bills of 
credit a legal tender in the colonies. In a report to the 
king, in 1764, they had pronounced this idea to be based 
upon fraud, and suggested that all resolutions in the colo- 
nies making such bills legal tender should be null and void. ' 

But the legislature of New Jersey had patience, persever- 
ance and an evident faith that in some way they would ob- 
tain the favor of a paper currency bill upon their own 
terms. In response to the continued petitioning of their 
constituents, a committee of both houses declared a new 
emission to be necessary. A bill for striking £100,000 was 
passed in April, 1768, but failed to receive the assent of 

^ Assembly Journal, 1767, 1768. ^Ibid., June 23, 1767. 

^ N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 488. *Ibid., vol. ix, p. 405. 



299] ^^^ FINANCIAL SYSTEM 299 

the governor, for the same reason that governed his conduct 
the year before/ 

Franklin acknowledged the possible service to the pro- 
vince that would attend a new emission and in behalf of the 
New Jersey council asked Secretary of State Hillsborough, 
if objection would be entertained to his assenting to a £100,- 
000 emission bill, without a suspending clause, if the money 
were not declared legal tender and the interest should be 
appropriated to public purposes.^ But only if a draft of 
the bill had been first transmitted for the king's approval, 
or had a suspending clause, was the governor's assent to be 
given.^ In order to facilitate the public business, Franklin, 
early in 1769, sent a draft of the £100,000 act to England, 
that any alterations might be suggested before the next 
assembly meeting.* On the ground that the act implied 
that the money was to be legal tender the measure was not 
to be recommended for the king's approbation. ° 

Although the terms of the home authorities were re- 
garded as unusually severe, the legislature of the colony 
hoped to devise an expedient, whereby the benefits of the 
prospective currency might in their estimation overbalance 
the inconveniences.^ The device agreed upon was that the 
bills should be legal tender only to the loan offices issuing 
them, a plan which had been adopted, according to the as- 
sembly, in Pennsylvania and Maryland.^ The measure 
passed at the November session of 1769 received the gov- 
ernor's assent, and its defence before the royal authorities 
was intrusted to Benjamin Franklin, the provincial agent 
at the court.* 

^ Assembly Journal, Apr. 23, 1768; A^. J. A., vol. x, p. 48. 

»iV. y. ^., vol. X, p. 49. Ubid.,p.6o. *Il)id., p. gg. 

^ Ibid., p. 106. ^Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 43. 

Ubid., vol. X, p. 200. ^Ibid., p. 136. 



300 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [300 

Having substantially qualified their position in regard to 
the bills, and provided for undoubtedly proper funds for 
the redemption of the currency, the assembly had no appre- 
hension regarding the fate of the act.^ This conviction 
was strengthened also, because the governor had urged the 
allowance of the bill as the best obtainable, even though 
deficient as to the appropriation of the interest money.^ 
When notice of the disallowance of this act was received in 
September, 1770,^ Franklin, as well as the assembly, was dis- 
pleased, declaring it absurd to expect persons to mortgage 
their estates to loan offices for money, which later the loan 
offices could not be forced to receive again in discharge of 
the mortgages.* 

The result of the last disallowance of their loan office act 
was to effectually discourage the assembly from attempting 
another bill for some time/ In 1771 the house refused to 
appropriate money for the supply of the royal troops, and 
by an overwhelming majority," an attempt to draft a bill 
in strict compliance with the royal mandate was discoun- 
tenanced." Instead, a resolution was passed that bills of 
credit would answer no good purposes unless they were 
legal tender to the loan offices. Many petitions were re- 
ceived by the assembly from 1771 until 1774 praying for 
an emission of paper money upon loan, but it was not until 
February of the latter year that, action was again taken in 
favor of a new emission.* 

On February 20, 1774, in a committee of the whole 
house, the assembly resolved by a vote of 22 to 7, that 

'A^. J. A., vol. X, p. 136. *Ibid., p. 150. 

* Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 192. *Ibid., vol. x, p. 200. 
^Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 200. 

* Assembly Journal, Apr. 18, 1771. 

"" Ibid., May 31, 1771. ""Ibid., 1771-1774. 



30l] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 301 

£100,000 should be emitted in bills of credit/ The gov- 
ernor, questioned upon the subject, declared it would avail 
nothing for him to assent to a measure which made the bills 
of credit legal tender to the loan office commissioners, even 
though a suspending clause should be added, for it would 
suffer the same fate as previous bills.^ The governor sug- 
gested the expedient of allowing the bills to pass as legal 
tender to -the provincial treasurers for the discharge of 
taxes, in accordance with a then recent act of Parliament. 

Such a bill was accordingly passed in March, 1774.^ Al- 
though the interest money which would accrue in the event 
of the confirmation of the act was not to be appropriated 
as the governor and council had desired, Franklin did not 
think proper to refuse his assent.* An order in council, 
under date of February 20, 1775, finally fixed the stamp 
of the royal approval upon the measure for which New Jer- 
sey had schemed and striven so long.*^ Frank and unquali- 
fied approval it was not. The bill was allowed, on the 
ground that paper money, when forbidden to be legal tender, 
had had salutary effects in the colonies. 

That the act had provided no permanent salaries for the 
civil officers of government during the existence of the loan, 
but provided for the appropriation of the interest money to 
the support of government by future acts of the assembly, 
was criticised as a defect. To meet this objection the king 
was urged to make a requisition for the purpose upon the 
New Jersey assembly. But to comply with such a recom- 
mendation the assembly was particularly disinclined, and 
indeed, the Revolution had begun before the legislature was 
officially notified of the royal allowance of the £100,000 act.® 

^Assembly Journal, Feb. 20, 1774. ^ Ibid., May 2 and 3, 1774. 

*Allinson, op. cit., p. 419. 

*■ N. J. A., vol. X, p. 461. ''Ibid., p. 549. 

^ Assembly Journal, Nov. 24, 1775. 



302 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [302 

The paper money question was one of the most trouble- 
some to the royal officials at home and in the colonies. It 
was a pertinent and stubborn fact that the peculiar circum- 
stances of the American colonies made necessary a sufficient 
and flexible medium of exchange. Despite the theoretical 
objections to the method chosen to accomplish the desired 
end, the temptation became overpowering to declare emis- 
sion after emission in order to lighten the burdens of taxa- 
tion. The evils of a paper currency were minimized in New 
Jersey, however, by the careful way in which provision was 
made and adhered to for redeeming the bills of credit. It 
was this fact largely which made the residents there less 
able to appreciate the position taken by the home govern- 
ment, and which made them so insistent for relief through 
resort to an expedient in which they saw only good. 

The New Jersey assembly could not " conceive it pos- 
sible for any Fund to be of a more fixed and determinate 
Value," than the land security, carefully inspected by loan 
officers, upon which the emissions were based. ^ " Our 
Lands are daily rising in worth," cried the colonists. That 
was true for many years, but times of stress came then, as 
now. When lands decreased in value, the bills of credit did 
also. The depreciation of Jersey bills, however, was less 
than those of New York and Pennsylvania. In 1741 Gov- 
ernor Morris wrote " that the bills or what they call the 
Paper Money of this Province have not only retained but 
encreas'd their Credit being now 12^ P Cent better than 
those of the neighboring province of New York." ^ Never- 
theless the bills did fluctuate in value, and the fact that the 
deterioration was less than in other provinces, did not ob- 
viate the fundamental objections of the lords of trade. 
Merchants and traders were losers just in proportion to the 
sinking credit of this unstable currency. 

^ N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 27. ^ Ibid., vol. vi, p, 135. 



303] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 303 

Aside from the theoretical objections to paper money, 
the London authorities naturally opposed the practice of 
supporting the civil establishments in the colonies by means 
of the interest from the bills of credit. This was a preva- 
lent scheme to avoid taxation. In so far as the Jerseymen 
attempted to escape taxation for the support of government 
by resorting to the emission of paper money, its use must 
be especially condemned. The obvious danger of such a 
practice was that of an over-issue. As the bills were regu- 
larly canceled at their expiration, those outstanding were 
insufficient to pay the expenses of government. As one of 
the documents of the time declared, the effect of continued 
emissions upon " the Body Politic, is like cold water to a 
man in high fever, the more is given still the more is called 
for." ^ And New Jersey was no exception to the colonies 
that wished to pay the salaries and other charges of gov- 
ernment in this way. " 'Tis 17 years since any Tax was 
raised on the People for Support of Government," Belcher 
informed the lords of trade in 1749.^ Two years later it 
was found necessary to raise the money for the support of 
government by a tax upon real and personal estates. Dur- 
ing the Fourth Intercolonial War the expense of govern- 
ment was again paid by the interest of money emitted on 
loan. This practice continued until about 1769, when the 
government was again supported by annual taxes. ^ It is 
thus evident that for only two brief periods between 1735 
and 1776 were the inhabitants taxed for the support of gov- 
ernment. When, with this fact, it is considered that there 
was no provincial duty or excise, it is difficult to believe 
that the colonists were tax-burdened, as was their frequent 
complaint. 

^N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 226. 

^ Ibid., vol. vii, p. 246. ^ Ibid., vol. ix, p. 580; vol. x, p. 447. 



304 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [304 

Whatever opposition the colonial governors showed to 
the emission of bills of credit, was due to respect for the 
letter of their instructions, and not to a desire to forbid 
the emissions. In many cases, indeed, denial of assent to 
issues of paper currency presaged the assembly's refusal to 
vote the necessary funds for the support of the civil estab- 
lishment. The three leading governors of New Jersey dur- 
ing this period, Morris, Belcher and Franklin, personally 
favored a reasonable amount of paper currency in the col- 
ony, and at least in the case of the last two, urged the lords 
of trade to allow the passage of credit acts, that conflicted 
with the letter of their instructions. 

The opposition to the restrictions imposed by the mother 
country upon the paper currency legislation in the colony, 
increased as the spirit of opposition to parliamentary tax- 
ation developed. This was doubtless due to the fact that 
when bills of credit could not be emitted, taxes were neces- 
sarily increased. The opposition of the home government 
to legal tender paper currency in the colonies was more 
consistent and resolute in the later, than in the earlier, colo- 
nial era. All the colonies including New Jersey, whose 
emissions were doubtless the least objectionable, felt the 
effect of this vigorous policy. 

After the paper bills of credit came into general use, 
the counterfeiting evil became of serious importance. Imi- 
tating foreign coins was not only difficult, because of the 
scarcity of metal, but the danger of detection was increased, 
because of the comparatively small amount in circulation. 
Counterfeiting the paper bills of credit, however, was less 
expensive and less risky. As early as 1727 it was found 
necessary to replace bills of a previous issue in part because 
several thousand pounds of the earlier issue had been coun- 
terfeited.^ The acts of emission decreed the penalty of 

'Nevill, op. cit., vol. i, p. 146. 



305] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 305 

death, without benefit of clergy, for altering or counterfeit- 
ing any of the bills. Notwithstanding this extreme penalty- 
counterfeiting prevailed to an unfortunate extent. In 1748, 
a council resolution declared that if a jury were called to 
hear the case of a counterfeiter in Morris County, convic- 
tion would be impossible, because the jury itself would 
include either some guilty of the same crime or others who 
were relatives of the accused! ^ The course of justice was 
not so much impaired in all the counties, however, because 
many persons suffered the extreme punishment for their 
crimes. 

There was other legislation ag^ainst counterfeiting, aside 
from the sections in the acts emitting bills of credit. The 
activities of the counterfeiters became especially bold during 
the violent period of the land riots. The legislature passed 
an " act for punishing the coiners and counterfeiters of 
foreign coin passing current ; and the counterfeiters of bills 
of credit of this Province " in February, 1748." The por- 
tion of the act relating to foreign coins made current by 
lawful authority was unquestioned, but the king's attorney 
general objected to the uncertainty of the description of 
foreign coins that should be passed by common consent as 
full satisfaction for debts, the penalty for the counterfeit- 
ing of which was also death."'' The act was accordingly 
disallowed.* - ^ 

The preamble of an act passed in 1766 recited that there 
was no New Jersey law for punishing " capitally " many 
evil-minded persons who had lately come into the province 
and counterfeited the bills of credit of the neighboring 
colonies."' Situated between New York and Philadelphia, 

' A^. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 48. 

"^ Ibid., vol. XV, p. 570. ^ Ibid., vol. vii, p. 305- 

*Allinson, op. cit., p. 71. ^ Ibid., p. 287. 



3o6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [306 

New Jersey was a convenient and natural stamping-ground 
for the manufacture of valueless money. This bill of 1766 
was designed to more effectually prevent such illicit busi- 
ness. The usual penalty was decreed. An act to more ef- 
fectually " punish the counterfeiters of foreign Gold or 
Silver Coin " current in the colony was passed in March, 
1774.^ Under this law, for the first offence the miscreant 
might at the discretion of the court be treated to one or all 
of the following punishments, namely, to be whipped,, 
branded " by an iron sufficiently hot to make a lasting 
mark," fined, imprisoned, pilloried or cropped. The penalty 
for the second offence was death. In the £100,000 act of 
1774, an addition was made to the regular provision that 
" 'Tis Death to Counterfeit." As encouragement, a reward 
of fifty pounds was to be paid to any person, who acting 
as an informer, was instrumental in securing the conviction 
of a counterfeiter.^ 

Notwithstanding the heavy penalties, as mentioned above, 
New Jersey suffered much from the practices of the coun- 
terfeiters. It was not unusual for the Pennsylvania Ga.'^ctte 
to print " A Caution to the Public," because of the issue 
of counterfeit Jersey Bills. The " Caution " would explain 
the variations for the benefit of " those who have not both 
sorts to look at together." ^ The Pennsylvania Journal for 
July 28, 1748, noticing the execution of Henry Yager, con- 
victed for counterfeiting New Jersey money, reported that 
" the Government is determined to exert itself in detecting 
and punishing this growing Evil." * 

Unfortunately the escape of ten out of eleven counter- 
feiters from the Morris county jail in October, 1748, pro- 
voked a quarrel between the branches of the government 

^Allinson, op. cit., p. 441. "^ Ibid., p.435- 

'A^. J. A., vol. xii, p. 242. *Ibid., p. 469. 



307] ^^^ FINANCIAL SYSTEM 307 

which effectually upset any stern determination to check the 
evil/ The prisoners had broken jail and had traveled un- 
molested to their homes. Believing that the authority of 
the judges should be strengthened, Belcher urged the legis- 
lature to pass a lav^ for that purpose." Because of the great 
number of counterfeiters in Morris County, the council's 
plan was that an act should be passed to enable the governor 
to grant commissions for bringing counterfeiters to trial in 
any county, upon which he, with the advice of the council, 
might determine.''' They did vouchsafe the opinion, how- 
ever, that some of the magistrates and judges of Morris 
County were lax. The assembly declared that not the laws, 
but the officers were at fault, and refused to pass any law 
providing for the transfer of the cases to other counties.* 
Neither house had a monopoly of the right nor was either 
disposed to compromise, and no agreement could be reached. 

One of the most notorious of the colonial money-makers 
was Samuel Ford, a sleek villain, who continued his law- 
less practises in New York and New Jersey for many years 
and in the end escaped the deserved punishment for his 
crimes.""' He had perfected himself in his " profession," 
by association with some of the famous Dublin crooks of 
that period. Associated with him in his ventures were 
John King and Joseph Richardson, who had visited Ireland 
with Ford. The Ford " mint " was in the thickest of a 
well-nigh impassable marsh, near his Hanover, Morris 
County, home. 

In July, 1773, suspicions were directed against Ford, and 
his arrest for distributing counterfeit money followed. 

^ N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 82. "^Ibid., p. 25. 

'^ Ibid., p. ZZ' *Ibid., p. 41. 

^See Sherman, Morristown; Whitehead, East Jersey Treasury Rob-* 
bery, N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc, vol. v, p. 49. 



3o8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [308 

After spending but a day in jail, he made good his escape, 
aided by his friend John King, a deputy sheriff, and perhaps 
winked at by Thomas Kinney, the high sheriff of Morris 
County. Efforts to capture Ford and his accomplice Rich- 
ardson were unavailing, the former, it is said, finally settling 
in Virginia, under the name of Baldwin. Charges were 
presented to the governor against Kinney by none other 
than King, who charged the high sheriff with abetting 
Ford in his escape.^ Although the council believed the 
charges to be unsupported, the governor was advised to 
prosecute the indictment which had already been found 
against Kinney in Morris County. The attorney general 
was ordered to prosecute the case.^ 

Bills of indictment for having been implicated with Ford 
were later brought against four men of supposed respecta- 
bility in the colony. These men were David Reynolds, 
Samuel Hays, Benjamin Cooper and Barnabas Budd. The 
reason that only the first named suffered the penalty for 
his crime, must be related in connection with the story of a 
crime committed in 1768, the solution of which apparently 
baffled the efforts of the provincial officials. 

For six years the robbery of the East Jersey treasury had 
remained an unraveled mystery. The home of Stephen 
Skinner, the East Jersey treasurer, at Perth Amboy, had 
been robbed of £6,570 9s 4d on the night of July 21, 1768. 
The house was occupied at the time, but the thieves worked 
with such ability and agility that, having broken open the 
iron chest, they escaped with the money, and successfully 
eluded all attempts to apprehend them. In a proclamation 
of July 26th, a reward for the capture of the robbers was 
offered, £50 to be paid by the governor, an additional £100 

^ N. J. A., vol. X, p. 419. 

"^ Assembly Journal, Feb. 16, I774- 



309] T^HE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 309 

by Mr. Skinner, and a confessing accomplice would be en- 
titled to the knig's pardon.' The council advised that the 
assistance of the governors of New York, Pennsylvania and 
Connecticut be asked, and that an express be hurried along 
the sea coast." It is interesting to notice that this advice 
was given a month after tlie perpetration of the crime. 

When the legislature met. in October, 1769, the assem- 
blymen expressed concern that the robbers had not been dis- 
covered and promised to give their best attention to the 
affair." The treasurer, hoping for indulgence for his 
errors, but wishing no mercy for any guilt, submitted his 
case to the assembly.'* A full inquiry into the robbery was 
postponed until the next session, after a declaration was 
made that nothing had up to that time appeared to impeach 
the character of the treasurer.^ 

At the session in October, 1770, the assembly made a 
searching inquiry into the matter. Many witnesses were 
examined and the members of the house even visited the 
scene of the robbery. After considering the evidence, the 
house resolved that the money was taken because of the 
" want of that Security and Care that was necessary to keep 
it in Safety," and the treasurer's request that the amount 
stolen be allowed him was denied.^ This resolution of the 
assembly impugned the treasurer, althoug'h no evidence 
condemnatory of his conduct in office had been advanced. 

The matter rested until September, 1772, when Skinner, 
in a memorial to the lower house, urged that the evidence be 
reconsidered, on the ground that the damaging resolution of 
1770 was repugnant to the declaration of 1769, that the 
assembly had found nothing to impeach his character.' As 

'A^. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 524. "^ Ibid., p. 525. 

^Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 42. ^ Assetnbly Jojirnal, Nov. 29, 1769, 
^Ibid., Nov. 29, 1769. ''Ibid., Oct. 17, 1770. 

''Ibid., Sept. 9, 1772. 



3IO THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [310 

no new evidence had been introduced, the assembly denied 
the request for a re-hearing, and asked the governor to 
join with them in some method for compelhng the treas- 
urer to account for and pay to the colony the sum stolen/ 
The assembly intimated to the governor, moreover, that 
the treasurer should have been removed after the robbery.^ 
This attitude of the lower house was scarcely consistent, 
and its position hardly tenable. A resolution proposing that 
the treasurer be removed had previously been rejected as 
unjust, and the assembly had continued to vote Skinner's 
salary.^ The governor pertinently mentioned these facts 
and promised to unite with the house upon any proper 
measures whenever they were suggested. This w^as the 
beginning of a long and bitter quarrel between the governor 
and the assembly, which effectually stopped legislation for 
some time. 

In a message to Franklin on September i8th, he was re- 
quested by the assembly to remove Skinner and join with 
the lower house in a law to authorize a newly-appointed 
treasurer to bring suit against the " now Treasurer " for 
the treasury deficiency, because he was negligent in his 
office.'* Disapproving of this the governor was asked to 
submit some more agreeable method. The governor prop- 
erly refused to remove the treasurer, before the offence 
charged against him had teen satisfactorily proved.^ 

Having laid the matter before the council for their ad- 
vice, that house, on September 20th, advised the governor 
that it would not be proper to remove Skinner.'^ In ac- 
cordance with their further advice, he recommended to the 

^ Assembly Journal, Sept. 10, 1772. 

'^ Ibid., Sept. 12, 1772. ^ Ibid., Sept. 15, 1772. 

^■Ibid., Sept. 18, 1772. ^ Ibid., Sept. 23, 1772. 

^N. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 294. 



3 1 1 ] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 3 1 j 

assembly a conference committee of the two houses to de- 
liberate upon the matter.^ The two committees met but 
could not reach an agreement at this session.^ That they 
saw no reason for altering their former opinion, was the 
answer which the assembly returned to the governor, and 
he was left to pursue whatever methods he desired.® 

At this juncture Skinner presented a memorial, stating 
his willingness to appear in a suit to be brought against 
him for the purposes desired by the assembly. Having de- 
cided that his removal from office must precede any action 
on their part, they refused to consider the proposal.* In a 
message of September 26th, the governor stated his position 
admirably but with little effect upon the stubborn legis- 
lators. He refused to remove the treasurer because of a 
mere opinion, expressed as such, by the house. Only when 
the treasurer's negligence had been legally determined would 
it be just to cause his removal. The attorney general, being 
the treasurer's brother, could not prosecute the case, but 
the governor declared himself willing to appoint for that 
purpose whomsoever they recommended. But if the as- 
sembly would not provide for the expenses of the suit, it 
would hang fire, and the blame must rest upon them. Re- 
turning no answer to this message, the house, having wearied 
of the quarrel, w^as prorogued at its own request. 

It was during the interval between the September, 1772, 
meeting of the assembly and the opening of the next session, 
in November, 1773, that the activities of the Morris County 
counterfeiters were revealed. Reynolds, the only member 
of the quartet indicted for counterfeiting, who was exe- 
cuted, had divulged certain information connecting Ford 

^N. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 339. 

"^ Assembly Journal, Sept. 23, 1772. 

^Ibid., Sept. 25, 1772. '■Ibid., Sept, 26, 1772. 



312 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [312 

with the robbery of the treasury. Cooper, Haynes and 
Budd, in confessions which gained for them freedom, also 
made statements incriminating Ford in connection with the 
robbery. 

Governor Frankhn referred to the treasury theft as hav- 
ing been brought to hght, when he addressed the legis- 
lature at the opening of the session in 1773, and urged that 
he be enabled to send proper persons on an expedition to 
capture the robbers.^ The assembly, not inclined to act in 
concert with the governor, recommended that rewards of 
£300 each be offered for the apprehension of Ford and 
Richardson, and £50 for King. Although the governor had 
laid before the house the confessions and examinations 
taken in connection with the affair, the assembly inquired 
the reasons for his belief that the mystery of the robbery 
had been solved.^ 

As firm as was the governor in his attitude toward Skin- 
ner, so resolute also was the assembly that the East Jersey 
treasurer should be removed. The governor in a long 
and careful message to the lower house detailed the reasons 
for his opinion. The assembly was inclined to scepticism 
regarding the confessions, because they had the appearance 
of having been extorted from the convicts by means of the 
" third degree." ^ The governor's position was, briefly, that 
credence could properly be given to those confessions where 

^ Assembly Journal, Nov. 12, 1773. "^ Ibid., Nov. 16, 1773. 

^ From the account of Justice Ogden, before whom the second confes- 
sion of Cooper was taken, we must conclude that the "third degree" 
was administered. The sheriff was ordered to take ofif Cooper's irons 
and pinion him, as if he was about to be hanged. The sheriff was then 
ordered to take the rope in his hands, tell Cooper he was sorry he had 
to do his duty, and must take him out. The rope was then coiled and 
moved by the sheriff. It is reported that at this point " Cooper v/as 
frightened, knew more and would confess it." Therefore he confessed 
that Sam Ford had robbed the East Jersey Treasury. 



313] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 3I'> 

they were not repugnant to credible evidence, and, that 
while there was positive and circumstantial evidence to 
prove that Ford was concerned in the robbery, there was 
nothing to prove the contrary.^ 

Meanwhile, Skinner again memorialized the assembly to 
the effect that he was anxious for some settlement and 
would agree to any method which was not over-prejudicial 
to him.- The house having ignored his former memorial, 
on December 17, 1773, he urged that a suit at law be 
brought, and promised to resign if the verdict should be 
against him. The assembly was unalterably opposed to 
Skinner. It was believed by some that the controversy was 
but the cloak to conceal their real plan to insist that the ap- 
pointment and removal of the treasurers should be by them 
alone. James Kinsey, from Burlington County, was one of 
the leaders against the governor in this matter, and is said 
to have declared that the treasurer would have been liable 
had lightning blasted the treasury.'^ 

On December i8th the assembly made a formal report to 
the governor of their position.* The report was doubt- 
less penned by Kinsey. It was a lengthy argument in favor 
of their position that the confessions could not be regarded 
as credible. In this, however, they were grossly incon- 
sistent, for it was admitted that Cooper's confession had 
been of great service against the counterfeiters. Admitting 
that the money was stolen, they still regarded the treasurer 
liable at law. Because removal was prerequisite to the 
institution of a suit at law. Skinner's removal was requested. 
The council did not hold this opinion, however, and unani- 
mously advised the governor, that removal was not neces- 

' Assembly Journal, Nov. 29, 1773. "^Ibid., Dec. 6, 1773. 

^ N. J. A., vol. X, p. 414. 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 13, 1773. 



314 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [314 

sary to the institution of a legal suit against the treasurer/ 
The assembly held to the belief that the public should bring 
suit and not confide simply in Skinner's promise to resign, 
if the verdict was against him." 

During this dispute, the wheels of government had been 
stopped. From arguments the assembly turned to threats, 
and, in February, 1774, flatly informed the governor that 
the fate of the bills for the support of government and for 
the supply of the barracks depended upon his decision re- 
garding Skinner's removal.^ But the people themselves 
now sought to influence directly by means of petitions the 
determination of the question, which had developed into an 
expensive and fruitless debate.'* The first petition that came 
to the assembly early in February urged that Skinner 
should be removed and then prosecuted, one from Burling- 
ton County, even suggesting that if the governor persisted 
in his position, that the assembly should petition the king. 
The tide turned, however, and later petitions cried out 
against the injustice of condemning a person before he had 
been tried by his peers, which a removal before conviction 
would seem to indicate. There was much zeal displayed for 
" that most valuable Privilege of the Subject, to wit, a 
Trial by his Peers." 

But regardless of petitions, each side remained firm. 
The governor was doubtless right in his position, and a 
master of argumentation, he riddled the arguments of the 
assembly, turning some into boomerangs ag'ainst them.^ The 
assembly, at a loss to refute Franklin, and unwilling to be 
convinced, on February 16, 1774, went on record as believ- 
ing that the affair still remained " in an obscurity which we 

'A^. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 375. 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 21, 1773. ^ Ibid., Feb. 9, 1774- 

*'Ibid., Feb., 1774. ^ Ibid., Feb. 14, 1774. 



315] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 315 

must leave to Time to unravel." Skinner again requested 
a settlement by legal suit, and in addition asserted his will- 
ingness to give any security that could reasonably be asked 
of him/ The satisfaction which the treasurer obtained was 
to be told to resign if he wished a trial. 

By a vote of 19 to 7, the house entered into seven resolves 
on February 19th." The treasurer was declared guilty of 
remissness in keeping the money; he should not be entrusted 
with its care; the assembly could consent to no law in- 
trusting funds to him ; Skinner's continuance in office was 
unsatisfactory to the people; the treasurer's negligence and 
the dissatisfaction of the people were sufficient reasons for 
removal ; any ill consequences or damage resulting from his 
continuance in office, should be placed against those who 
continue him in his position; and, the king- should be peti- 
tioned for redress. 

The quarrel gave every evidence of being interminable, 
when Skinner voluntarily resigned on February 22d. The 
previous day the assembly had asked Franklin to ap- 
point some proper person for receiving the taxes for the 
ensuing year in East Jersey.^ The governor having re- 
vealed this request to Skinner, the treasurer resigned and 
John Smyth was appointed to succeed him.* His resigna- 
tion is an interesting document, setting forth his anguish 
and mortification during the recent trouble, but his deter- 
mination that the public interest should no longer be put in 
competition with his individual interest. 

A bill was immediately introduced to authorize the new 
treasurer to bring an action against Skinner for the amount 

^ Assembly Journal, Feb. 17, 1774. 

^ Assembly Journal, Feb. 19, 1774. The first resolution was carried 
by a vote of 21 to 5. 
^ Assembly Journal, Feb. 21, 1774. *Ibid., Feb. 24, 1774. 



3i6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [315 

Stolen. The governor did not agree with the method pur- 
sued by the assembly according to the act, and offered to 
refuse his assent if Skinner so desired/ The latter, trust- 
ing in the justice of the legislature, interposed no objection 
and the bill was passed.' By the law, Smyth was ordered 
to sue for the money, if Skinner refused to pay £6,570 9s. 
4d. upon demand. John Wetherill, James Kinsey and Rob- 
ert Price, or their survivors, were appointed managers of 
the suit and were authorized to draw a sum not to exceed 
£200 from the treasury for its prosecution. The judge and 
jurors were declared exempt from the payment of taxes 
raised on account of the suit. 

The measure did not pass, however, without the exhi- 
bition of ill-humor between the houses of the legislature. 
In sending this act to the council, the assembly urged that 
it be given speedy consideration. The council with sen- 
sitive dignity and wounded pride hoped that the assembly 
did " not mean to convey an Idea that this House would 
not bestow an early and sufficient Attention to the Bill as 
the Importance of it should require, without being then put 
in mind of their Duty." ^ 

Meanwhile the bad humor of the assembly had not been 
mollified by Franklin's appointment of Skinner to the coun- 
cil. Even without this added impetus, the personnel of the 
managers would have insured the prosecution of the case 
with suitable avidity. In the excitement of the approaching 
Revolution, however, counterfeiters and treasury robbers 
became of secondary consideration, and the suit against 
Skinner was never concluded. During the war, the ex- 

^ Assembly Journal, March 11, 1774. 
*Allinson, op. cit., p. 449. 
^ N. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 465. 



317] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 317 

treasurer turned loyalist, and his New Jersey property was 
confiscated and sold. That may have afforded some degree 
of consolation to the ardent spirits, who worked with such 
assiduity, in session and out of session, for his removal. 

This subject has been treated in such detail because of 
the insight which it so clearly shows of the workings and 
characteristics of the colonial government. It is interesting 
to note how disproportionate an amount of the public money 
and attention was consumed by this unusual but compara- 
tively unimportant affair. Its real importance was magni- 
fied because it was made the occasion for the expression of 
the growing hostility felt against the royal executive. The 
assembly gained the victory in this struggle. This was all 
the more significant, inasmuch as the victory was in the 
field of finance. Another step was gained in the ladder up 
which the assembly was ever slowly but surely climbing, 
to make the popular branch of the legislature of undoubted 
supremacy in the affairs of the colony. 

In financial affairs, the New Jersey Assembly succeeded 
in gaining unquestioned control. Despite the protests of 
the royal officials at home and in the colony, the lower 
house continually asserted and stubbornly maintained the 
principle that it alone could originate and alter money 
bills. Payments for the usual expenses of government were 
made by a warrant of the governor, with the consent of the 
council, upon the provincial treasurers. Accounts were to 
be audited by crown officers. 

The money raised for the extraordinary expenses of the 
war was paid out in an irregular manner. Commissioners, 
independent of the governor, were appointed for carrying 
into execution the purposes of the acts for aiding the king 
in military operations. The commissioners were made ac- 
countable to the assembly only, which by such acts was 



3i8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [318 

given the power of allowing or disallowing accounts/ In 
1759, Bernard complained of this irregular practise of 
issuing warrants to persons accountable to the assembly.^ 
An additional instruction was thereupon sent to him, 
whereby he was ordered to refuse his assent to any bills for 
raising money unless the sums appropriated were to be upon 
warrant of the governor with the advice and consent of the 
council.^ The accounts were in future issued upon warrant 
of the governor, but were not audited by royal officials. 
The treasurers were regularly ordered by the assembly to 
lay their accounts before the house, and a joint committee 
of the assembly and council inspected them. 

In March, 1774, doubtless as a result of the treasury 
robbery, an act was passed " to oblige the Treasurers of 
the Colony of New Jersey to give Security for the due 
Execution of their Offices and to prescribe the Mode in 
which the same Security shall be taken." * Before any 
public money was put into his hands, the treasurer was to 
give bond for £10,000 proclamation money. The governor, 
council and assembly were to be the judges of the sufficiency 
of the security. This act, entirely laudable, had the effect 
of more properly securing the public funds. 

^ N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 154. 

^Ibid., p. 154- ^Ibid., p. 158. 

*Allinson, op. cit., p. 447. 



VITA 

Edgar Jacob Fisher was born in Rochester, New York, 
in 1885, and received his public and high school education 
in that city. In September, 1903, he entered the University 
of Rochester, obtaining the degree of Bachelor of Arts from 
that institution in June, 1906. The year 1906-1907 was 
spent in pursuing graduate studies under Prof. William C. 
Morey and Prof. George M. Forbes, at the University of 
Rochester, and in June, 1907, the author of this study re- 
ceived the degree of Master of Arts. Having matriculated 
at Columbia University, he spent the next two years in resi- 
dence at that institution. He attended the seminars of Prof. 
Herbert L. Osgood, and Prof. William A. Dunning, and 
courses under Professors Osgood, Dunning, Burgess, 
Sloane, Robinson, Seligman, Seager, and Shepherd. Dur- 
ing the year, 1909- 19 10, he was principal of the Roselle 
Park (New Jersey) High School. 



' ^^1 



NEW JERSEY AS A ROYAL 



1738 to 1776 



BY 

EDGAR JACOB FISHER, A. M. 



SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS 

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

IN THE 

Faculty of Political Science 
Columbia University 



NEW YORK 
I9II 



*-> t&«y^3- •• 



7 - 7 S 



^-^ --^ 



%^ ^y^0: /^ 





^ 


















c, ij^ 







O . O ' . 






,?'* 
















v^> 



.. _^ .1 

A <v '. ,-. t> o' ^. '" 



•J) 







r^ 



■Cr'f^ N. 



MANCHESTER. 
INDIANA 



• %/ •*!%'■' \>/ ■••^^^*- 

<Xy ■■:■„■' 'i:i>^ -V 






